M. ANASUYDEVI AND ANR. versus M. MANIK REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 16-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M. ANASUY A DEVI AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
M. MANIK REDDY AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 16, 2003 
(V.N. KHARE, CJ AND S.B. SINHA,).] 
B 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 
Ss. 34 and 36-Award-Stamping and registration of-Application 
u/s 34 for setting aside award-On the ground inter alia that award was C 
not stamped and registered-Held, an application for setting aside an 
. award would not lie on any other ground which is not enumerated in s. 
34-The question as to whether the award is required to be stamped and 
registered would be relevant only when parties would file the award for 
its enforcement uls 36-/t is at this stage the parties can raise objections D 
regarding its admissibility on account of non-registration and non-
stamping u/s 17 of Registration Act-At the stage of proceedings under s.34 
the issue was premature-The question whether an award requires stamping 
and registration is within the ambit of s.47 CPC and not covered by s.34 
of the Act-Registration Act, 1908..:_s.17--Code of Civil Procedure, E 
1908-s.47. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal Nos. 7940-
7942 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.2001 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in C.M.A. Nos. 2671, 2672 and 2677 of 2000. 
Rakesh Dwivedi, G.R.K. Prasad, Md. Wasay Khan, Ms. Niranjana 
Singh and Abhishek Chaudhary for the Appellants. 
V.R. Reddy, P. Venkat Reddy, G. Prabhakar, Ms. Fatima, Rajender 
Reddy, S.U.K. Sagar, Prasanth P., Ms. Bina Madhavan and Ms. G. Indra 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
853 
F 
G 
H 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants and the respondents are the ·members of the joint 
family. It appears that certain disputes arose and as a result of which they 
. entered. into an agreement to refer the dispute to the Arb ital Tribunal for 
deciding the partition of the Joint Hindu properties. Although the agreement 
postulated the Arbitral Tribunal of five persons, it is not disputed that there 
B were only four persons who comprised the/Tribunal. The Tribunal gave 
an Award on 31st May, 1998, which was subsequently corrected on l 0th 
June, 1998 by a clarification order. The respondents herei9, who appears 
to have not satisfied with the Award filed two petitions under Section 34(1) 
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereina~_er referred to as 'the 
C Act') for setting aside the Award, inter a/ia, on the follO\·ying grounds: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(l) 
That the composition ofarbitral tribunal was not proper and 
it is not in accordance with the provisions of Section l 0 of 
the Arbitration .and Conciliation Act, and, therefore, the 
award is without jurisdiction and invalid; 
(2) 
That the respondents were not given proper notice of arbitral 
proceedings and opportunity to represent their case; 
(3) 
That the Arbitrators have acted beyond the scope of reference 
of the matter referred for arbitration; 
(4) 
That the·Award is not supported by.reason, as such, bad 
U/s. 31 of the Act; 
(5) 
That the Arbitrators have not acted impartially and played 
fraud on the parties; and 
(6) · That the Award is inadmissible and unenforceable in law for 
want of proper stamp duty and registration. 
The Principal Sub-Judge, Hyderabad, by an order dated 14th August, 
2000 rejected the said petitions. Aggrieved, the respondents filed the 
appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh under · 
Section 37(l)(b) of the Act. The High Court was of the view that since · ·· 
H the Award was not stamped and registered, it was, therefore, in.valid and 
M.A. DEVI v. M.M. REDDY 
855 
without jurisdiction. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the A 
appellants are in appeal before us. 
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the 
appellants urged that a perusal of Award would show that it has not created 
any right or liability in favour of any party, but it requires a subsequent B 
documentation by the parties. He submitted, in that view of the matter, the 
Award was not required to be stamped and registered and in fact 
subsequent documentation would definitely requires stamping and 
registration. However, Shri V.K. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing 
for the respondents, urged that the Award did create rights in favour of the C 
parties and as such it required registration and the view taken by the High 
Court is in conformity with law. 
After we heard the matter, we are of the view that in the present case 
this issue was n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.