Enforcement of the awards can go on. The Supreme Court has stayed the Delhi High Court’s directions on Impounding Of Arbitral Awards that were insufficiently stamped, and has said the High Court’s July 13 practice directions on stamp duty will continue to operate.
New Delhi: Two Delhi High Court orders, one of September 1 that laid down a procedure for impounding insufficiently stamped domestic arbitral awards brought for enforcement and a second of September 7 passed in another enforcement matter, have been stayed by the Supreme Court. Issuing notice on the special leave petitions on Tuesday, November 3, the Court added that the pendency of the proceedings would not stop the High Court from going ahead with execution [M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd v. Airports Authority of India].
The order was passed by a Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, who made the notice returnable on January 25, 2027.
What the Bench directed
Staying both High Court orders until further orders, the Bench said:
“The pendency of the proceedings will not come in the way of the Court proceedings with the execution in both the matters. We further direct that the practice directions issued by the High Court of Delhi dated 13.07.2026, shall continue to operate.”
The matters will be called on January 25, 2027. In two further connected petitions, argued by Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar, the Court listed the matters on January 5, 2027.
The petitions and the High Court ruling
The lead petition, SLP (C) No. 36806 of 2026, was filed by URC Construction against the judgment of September 1, 2026 in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) No. 155 of 2026, an enforcement petition the company had filed against the Airports Authority of India. A connected batch, SLP (C) Nos. 38820-38821 of 2026, challenged the High Court’s order of September 7, 2026 in OMP (ENF.) No. 2 of 2026 and Execution Application (OS) No. 97 of 2026.
In its September 1 ruling, the High Court had held that a domestic arbitral award attracts stamp duty when it is signed, not when it is presented for enforcement. Paying the deficit unilaterally more than a month after signing, it said, does not cure the defect, so such an award must be impounded under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The High Court directed its Registry not to list enforcement petitions without proof of sufficient stamp duty, and to return petitions filed after August 13, 2026 involving insufficiently stamped awards under objection and place them before the Joint Registrar for impounding. It also held that the enforcing court could not waive or reduce the statutory penalty, though the Collector of Stamps could exercise discretion on it.
Arguments before the Supreme Court
Counsel Vikas Mehta contended that the directions ran contrary to the Stamp Act. Relying on Section 33, he argued that impounding can be resorted to only when an instrument comes before an authority competent to receive evidence and that authority finds it not duly stamped. Registry officials numbering an enforcement petition, he argued, are not at that stage officials competent to receive evidence.
He further submitted that stamping in the case was in line with the High Court’s practice direction of July 13, 2026, which the Supreme Court’s order reproduces:
“Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to direct that in every execution petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the Petitioner/Decree Holder shall make a declaration in bold capital letters on the top of the index that he has paid the stamp duty on the award.”
For pending execution petitions, the direction required stamp duty to be paid within four weeks of its issue where it had not been paid. In view of this, counsel argued, there was no occasion to direct impounding, and apart from the first direction, the validity of the rest of the High Court’s directions required examination.
Counsel Anshumaan Sahni, for the petitioners in the connected matters, submitted that although the stamping there came before the practice directions, it was in accord with them. Counsel Digvijay Rai appeared on caveat for the respondents.
What changes at the filing counter
Award holders in Delhi had been facing a filter at the filing counter: no listing without proof of full stamp duty, and impounding before the Joint Registrar where the stamping fell short. The stay lifts that procedure for now while leaving the simpler July 13 regime of a declaration and payment of duty in place, so enforcement petitions can keep moving.
The question the Supreme Court will now examine is a familiar one under the Stamp Act: when, and by whom, an instrument can be impounded. If Section 33 confines that power to an authority competent to receive evidence, a Registry scrutinising papers at the numbering stage may not be the right forum, and the timing rule that an award must be stamped when signed will also come under scrutiny.
Case Title: M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd v. Airports Authority of India [SLP (C) No. 36806/2026] with SLP (C) Nos. 38820-38821/2026
Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar; Advocates Vikas Mehta (AOR), Saurabh Suman Sinha, Mrigank Prabhakar (AOR), Yerradoddy Charvi Reddy, V Ganesan, Nitika Grover, Vaishnav Kumar, Vaishak Omanakuttan, Anshumaan Sahni and Anindita Mitra (AOR) for the petitioners; Advocates Anshul Rai (AOR), Digvijay Rai, Archit Goel, S.K. Pandey, Chandrashekhar A Chakalabbi, Ojaswa Pathak, Mallika Ranjan and Raunaq Singh for the respondents