APHC010401842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 20315 of 2025 Between: 1. M/S. MDA MINERAL DHATU (A.P) PVT. LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, SHANTI BHAWAN, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL- 700007 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. VIDHAN MITTAL HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT H.O- MITTAL CHAMBERS, 10-1-13/2, LEVEL - 5, ASILMETTA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-530003 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. VIDHAN MITTAL ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, VUDA COMPLEX, 6TH FLOOR, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISHAKAPATANAM DISTRICT VISHAKAPATANAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N JEEVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 20315 of 2025 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “may be pleased to Issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No.2 in failing to act upon Procedural Order No.04 dated 05.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Sole Arbitrator as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the statutory mandate under Chapter IV of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and Direct Respondent No.2 to forthwith act upon the Procedural Order No 04 dated 05.01.2024 and to impound the scanned Purchase and Sale Agreement dated 20.02.2019 executed between the Petitioner and M/s OPL Ventures Ltd and Zaaminco Mining Ltd submitted along with the Petitioners representation dated 02.01.2025 and to determine and collect the applicable stamp duty and penalty in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and Pass orders”. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court the order passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 05.01.2024, which reads as follows: “…Heard Sri Rajabaksh Srinivas/ Sri S.V. Suresh, learned counsel for the Respondents and Sri N. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant online. In view of the very recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court IN RE: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 ((2023) SCC Online SC 1666) overruling N.N.Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. M/s. Indo Unique Frame Limited and others [(2023) 7 SCC 1], application U/S 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act in I.A.1 of 2023 cannot stand. It is left to this Tribunal to consider the issue relating to application of the Stamp Act to the documents in question as per the above ruling. Sri N. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant represents that his 3 client would take steps in this respect if necessary permission is given. In the circumstances I.A.1 of 2023 if dismissed. The claimant is permitted to get these documents impounded and pay appropriate Stamp duty and penalty if any as directed, by the Collector (District Registrar concerned having jurisdiction), Visakhapatnam, under the Stamp Act. Posted to 31/01/2024 at 05.00 P.M. at the residential office of the undersigned. Statement of Defence shall be filed by the respondents by them.” 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has submitted a representation requesting the impounding of a document that was executed online using digital signatures. Despite the order passed by the Sole Arbitrator, which relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.N.Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. M/s Indo Unique Frame Limited and others 1 , the respondents have not considered the petitioner’s representation for impounding the document, nor have they passed any orders on it. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has placed on record the instructions of the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam, dated 25.09.2024. A plain reading of said instructions goes to show that the authority has relied on Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and stated that under this provision, the authorities are permitted to impound instruments only upon the production of the original documents. It is further submitted that scanned copies do not qualify as instruments for the purpose of impounding. In the present case, the petitioner has submitted only scanned documents, which are not impoundable under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, 1 (2023) SCC online SC 1666 4 as they do not qualify as original instruments. In fact, this was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.09.2024, wherein he was requested to submit the original agreements and evidence of consideration. Despite this, the petitioner has not produced any original documents. Hence, the respondents are unable to comply with the orders of the Sole Arbitrator under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, and on perusal of the instructions submitted by the learned Government Pleader based on the instructions of the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam, it appears that there is not much controversy involved in this matter. The only issue is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the other party online, and the document was digitally signed by the parties. In such a situation, there would be no original physical document, and the petitioner can only produce a printed copy of the digitally executed agreement. If the respondents have any doubt or require verification, they are entitled to verify the digital documents themselves. 7. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the concerned authorities are directed to consider the same, and the petitioner may also produce all the original digital signatures before the authorities. Based on such production, the concerned authorities may consider the request for impounding and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date:22.11.2025 KNN 6 75 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH W.P.No.20315 of 2025 22.11.2025 KNN