# M/S Kaleshwari Power Products Private Limited v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 593
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-29
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 24614 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-kaleshwari-power-products-private-limited-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53607
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Petitioner, a registered micro/small enterprise
supplies to various departments of BSNL. Bills
for the supplies remained unpaid. It took steps
under provisions in section 18 of the MSME Act.
The issue of non-payment resulted in arbitration
reference and award stood made.

Headnotes
Civil matter-Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprise Development Act, 2006-Section
18 & Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996-Section
31(5)-The
petitioner
challenged a requisition requiring it to pay
stamp duty to obtain a copy of an arbitral
award made following a reference u/s 18 of
the
MSME
Act-Communication
requiring
payment of stamp duty for providing a signed
copy of the arbitral award to a party was
illegal-Petition allowed.

Held
The court held that Section 31(5) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act,1996 which is applicable by
operation of the MSME Act,2006, mandates that a
signed copy of the arbitral award must be delivered
to
each
party-Following
the
Supreme
court
pronouncement in M. Anasuya Devi and Anr. Vs. M.
Manik Reddy and Ors, the Court reiterated the
question of whether an award is required to be
stamped and registered is relevant only when a party
files the Award for its enforcement under section 36
of the Act.1996-Stamping is a prerequisite for
enforcement, not for delivery of the copy-The court
found the vires challenge to Clause (xii) under Rule 6
of the Uttar Pradesh State Micro and Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council Rules,2006 which
states that the award "shall be stamped in
accordance with the relevant law in force," to be
unfounded-The writ petition allowed-The respondent
was directed to make the signed copy of the award
available to the petitioner.(Para 7 to 10) (E-6)

Case Law Cited
M. Anasuya Devi & Anr. Vs. M. Manik Reddy & Ors
Appeal (Civil) 7940-792 of 2001

List of Acts
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development
Act,2006, Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996

List of Keywords
Arbitral award; BSNL; Stamp Duty;Micro, Small and
Medium
Enterprises
Development
Act,2006;Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: WRIT-C No. - 24614 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2025 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

M/S Kaleshwari Power Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner:
Prem Chandra, Sudhanshu Kumar, Swapnil Kumar
Adv. for Respondent:-
C.S.C.

## Text

7 All. M/S Kaleshwari Power Products Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
593
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 593
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 24614 of 2025

M/S Kaleshwari Power Products Private
Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prem Chandra, Sudhanshu Kumar, Swapnil
Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Petitioner, a registered micro/small enterprise
supplies to various departments of BSNL. Bills
for the supplies remained unpaid. It took steps
under provisions in section 18 of the MSME Act.
The issue of non-payment resulted in arbitration
reference and award stood made.

Headnotes
Civil matter-Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprise Development Act, 2006-Section
18 & Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996-Section
31(5)-The
petitioner
challenged a requisition requiring it to pay
stamp duty to obtain a copy of an arbitral
award made following a reference u/s 18 of
the
MSME
Act-Communication
requiring
payment of stamp duty for providing a signed
copy of the arbitral award to a party was
illegal-Petition allowed.

Held
The court held that Section 31(5) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act,1996 which is applicable by
operation of the MSME Act,2006, mandates that a
signed copy of the arbitral award must be delivered
to
each
party-Following
the
Supreme
court
pronouncement in M. Anasuya Devi and Anr. Vs. M.
Manik Reddy and Ors, the Court reiterated the
question of whether an award is required to be
stamped and registered is relevant only when a party
files the Award for its enforcement under section 36
of the Act.1996-Stamping is a prerequisite for
enforcement, not for delivery of the copy-The court
found the vires challenge to Clause (xii) under Rule 6
of the Uttar Pradesh State Micro and Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council Rules,2006 which
states that the award "shall be stamped in
accordance with the relevant law in force," to be
unfounded-The writ petition allowed-The respondent
was directed to make the signed copy of the award
available to the petitioner.(Para 7 to 10) (E-6)

Case Law Cited
M. Anasuya Devi & Anr. Vs. M. Manik Reddy & Ors
Appeal (Civil) 7940-792 of 2001

List of Acts
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development
Act,2006, Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996

List of Keywords
Arbitral award; BSNL; Stamp Duty;Micro, Small and
Medium
Enterprises
Development
Act,2006;Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: WRIT-C No. - 24614 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2025 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

M/S Kaleshwari Power Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner:
Prem Chandra, Sudhanshu Kumar, Swapnil Kumar
Adv. for Respondent:-
C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.)

1. Petitioner says it is registered as a
micro/small enterprises under provisions in
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Development Act, 2006. It made supplies
to various departments of Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited (BSNL). Bills for the
supplies remained unpaid. It took steps
under provisions in section 18 of said Act.
The issue of non-payment resulted in an
arbitration reference and award stood
made.

2. Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner
draws attention to writing dated 21st
March, 2025, in response to his client's
requisition for copy of the award. By said
writing his client was informed that stamp
duty needs to be paid for the award copy to
be made available. This requirement cannot
be sustained because section 31 in
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
provides for form of arbitral award, which
is applicable in an arbitration reference by
operation of provisions in the Act of 2006.
Section 36 in the 1996 Act provides for
enforcement. He relies on judgment of the
Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) 79407942 of 2001 (M. Anasuya Devi and Anr.
vs. M. Manik Reddy and Ors.) dealt with
on judgment dated 16th October, 2003 to
submit, law declared was, the question as to
whether the award is required to be
stamped and registered would be relevant,
only when a party files the award for its
enforcement under section 36 in the Act of
1996.
Relied
upon
paragraph
in
'JUDIS.NIC.IN' print is reproduced below.

"After we heard the matter, we
are of the view that in the present case this
issue was not required to be gone into at
the stage of proceedings under Section 34
of the Act. In fact, this issue was premature at that stage. Section 34 of the Act
provides for setting aside of the Award on
the ground enumerated therein. It is not in
dispute that an application for setting aside
the Award would not lie on any other
ground, which is not enumerated in Section
34 of the Act. The question as to whether
the Award is required to be stamped and
registered, would be relevant only when
the parties would file the Award for its
enforcement under Section 36 of the Act.
It is at this stage the parties can raise
objections regarding its admissibility on
account of non-registration and nonstamping
under
Section
17
of
the
Registration Act. In that view of the matter
the exercise undertaken to decide the said
issue by the Civil Court as also by the High
Court was entirely an exercise in futility.
The question whether an Award requires
stamping and registration is within the
ambit of Section 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and not covered by Section 34 of
the Act."

(emphasis supplied)

He submits, in the facts and
circumstances his client has mounted vires
challenge to clause (xii) under rule 6 in
Uttar Pradesh State Micro and Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council Rules,
2006, notified on 19th January, 2007. The
clause (xii) is reproduced below.

"6. ...........................

(xii) The Council shall make an
Arbitral award in accordance with section
31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996 and within the time specified in subsection (5) of section 18 of the Act. The
award shall be stamped in accordance
with the relevant law in force. Copies of
the award shall be made available within
seven days of filing of any application."

(emphasis supplied)
7 All. M/S Kaleshwari Power Products Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
595

3. Mr. Kumar submits, requirement by
entry 12 in schedule I-B in Stamp Act,
1899 providing for the rules applicable in
Uttar Pradesh cannot be basis for the
requisition made on his client, to provide
stamp duty for making the award available.
The award has not been published. He
refers to the entry to point out that there has
to be assessment on value of the award for
purpose of treating it as a bond, to
determine stamp duty payable. His client
has not yet been informed of contents in the
award and as such or even otherwise, the
requisition is illegal.

4. He submits further, impugned
clause (xii) under rule 6 in the notification
was promulgated in exercise of powers
granted to the State Government by section
30 in the Act of 2006, to make rules.
Section 30 is reproduced below.

"30. Power to make rules by
State Government.-

(1) The State Government may,
by notification, make rules to carry out the
provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
power, such rules may provide for all or
any of the following matters, namely:-

(a) the composition of the Micro
and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council,
the manner of filling vacancies of the
members and the procedure to be followed
in the discharge of their functions by the
members
of
the
Micro
and
Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council under subsection (3) of section 23;

(b) any other matter which is to
be or may be, prescribed under this Act.

(3) The rule made under this
section shall, as soon as may be after it is
made, be laid before each House of the
State Legislature where there are two
Houses, and where there is one House of
the State Legislature, before that House."

The offending clause in the rule
cannot be said to be other matter, which is
or may be prescribed under the Act. Said
clause is not for purpose to carry out any
provision in the Act. He reiterates his
reliance on section 18 in the Act of 2006,
making applicable provisions in the Act of
1996, where there is nothing required on
registration of an award. He seeks striking
down of clause (xii) under rule 6 in the
rules notified on 19th January, 2007.

5. Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned advocate,
Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears
on behalf of State and submits, the clause
in the rule has been provided to make the
award enforceable, in line with requirement
under entry 12 in schedule I-B of the Stamp
Act. No interference is warranted.

6. Impugned clause under rule 6
requires the award to be stamped in
accordance with the relevant law in force.
The requisition precedes mandate for
copies of the award to be made available
within seven days of filing of any
application. Wording of the clause carrying
requirement of stamp duty preceding
requirement of making available copy of
the award appears to be basis for the
requisition,
questioned
by
petitioner.
Petitioner has applied for copy of the
award. It has been told to pay on stamp
duty. Considering the clause as a whole, it
is seen that the council is to make an
arbitral award in accordance with section
31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. Sub-section (1) in section 31
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provides for the award to be made in
writing and signed by the members of the
arbitral tribunal. Sub-section (5) mandates,
the arbitral award, on its making, signed
copy thereof be delivered to each party.
Section 36 provides for enforcement of the
award. It follows that the award, when
made, signed copy of it must be made
available to a party to the reference.
Requirement for payment of stamp duty
will arise, when the award is sought to be
enforced.

7. In M. Anasuya Devi (supra), the
Supreme Court noticed that it was urged by
respondent before it, the award in that case
did create rights in favour of the parties and
it required registration. The Court said,
view taken by the High Court was in
conformity with the law. In this case
petitioner says, he is not aware of contents
in the award. Mr. Kumar reiterates,
question of payment of stamp duty will
only arise at or prior to execution. We
accept his submission but are of the view
that the vires challenge is unfounded.

8. Section 30 in the Act of 2006
empowers the State Government to make
rules to carry out provisions of the Act.
Impugned clause under rule 6 is for
purpose of enforcement of an award.
Petitioner's case must result in award for
money and hence, petitioner is referring to
entry 12 in schedule I-B of the Stamp Act
as applicable in the State. In some other
case, it may be an award on interest in
respect of immovable property, to make it
compulsorily registrable under section 17
in Registration Act, 1908. Whatever be the
case, the State Government in requiring an
arbitral award, made by the council,
enforceable is seen to have duly exercised
the power in promulgating, inter alia,
clause (xii) under rule 6 of the 2006 Rules,
applicable in this State. However, the
communication requiring stamp duty to be
paid for making signed copy of the award
available to petitioner, who was party in the
reference,
cannot
stand
inasmuch
as
referred to sub-sections in section 31 of the
1996 Act mandate signed copy of the
award being made available to it. The 1996
Act has been made applicable in this case
on invocation of chapter V in the MSME
Act, 2006.

9. Petitioner will produce certified
copy of this judgment before respondent
no.2, whereupon signed copy of the award
is to be made available to it.

10. The writ petition is allowed and
disposed of as above.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 596
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1003588 of 2003

Becha Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kishore
Kr.
Srivastava,
Ravi
Shanker
Tewari, Sheo Pal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, R.N. Gupta

Issue for consideration
When a fragment of a holding has been
transferred during the period when Section 168A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act was in existence with
regard to an area which though initially was