CR-3218-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/S Yargun Enterprises Pvt. L M/S Mediaids and others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Manish Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Jain, Advocate, Mr. Bharat Mani Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Naman Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Sachdeva, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sachdeva, Advocate, for respondent No.1. LAPITA BANERJI The case of the petitioner in brief is that the award passed by the MSME Facilitation envisaged under proviso (e) to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Therefore, without the appropriate stamp duty being paid award cannot be proceeded with 2. Learned holder/respondent Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 that the award passed by the MSME Council is an instrument of the State and therefore, no stamp duty is required to be paid thereupon for execution of the said award. In alternative, he submits that even if this Court is of the view that the award is required to be stamped, the said defect is a curable one and therefore, the award cannot be 2026 (O&M) Sr. No.105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision : M/S Yargun Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S Mediaids and others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Manish Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Jain, Advocate, Mr. Bharat Mani Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Naman Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Sachdeva, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sachdeva, Advocate, for respondent No.1. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) The case of the petitioner in brief is that the award passed by Facilitation Council is not an instrument of the Government as envisaged under proviso (e) to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Therefore, without the appropriate stamp duty being paid award cannot be proceeded with, in execution. Learned counsel appearing on behalf holder/respondent submits referring to Sections 20 and 21 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 that the award passed by the MSME Council is an instrument of the State and therefore, no stamp duty is required to be paid thereupon for execution of the said award. In alternative, he submits that even if this Court is of the view that the award is required to be stamped, the said defect is a curable one and therefore, the award cannot be nullified for such a curable defect. p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3218-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Manish Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bharat Mani Goyal, Advocate, Mr. V.K.Sachdeva, Advocate with The case of the petitioner in brief is that the award passed by Council is not an instrument of the Government as envisaged under proviso (e) to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Therefore, without the appropriate stamp duty being paid on the award, the in execution. counsel appearing on behalf of the decree referring to Sections 20 and 21 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 that the award passed by the MSME Council is an instrument of the State and therefore, no stamp duty is required to be paid thereupon for execution of the said award. In alternative, he submits that even if this Court is of the view that the award is required to be stamped, the said defect is a curable one and nullified for such a curable defect. VANDANA 2026.07.03 18:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3218-2026 (O&M) 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the decree holder/respondent further submits that in order to execution proceedings, stamp duty on the award. If such a course is permitted by this Court the dilatory tactics of the petitioner/judgment debtor will be rendered nugatory. 4. In view of the afore statement made by learned counsel appearing for the decree holder, the civil revision being 2026 is disposed of with a direction to affix the appropriate stamp duty on the Award in question. 5. Till such time Executing Court is proceedings. Thi 6. The question of law decided in an appropriate case. July 02, 2026 Vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2026 (O&M) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the decree holder/respondent further submits that in order to execution proceedings, the decree holder was willing to pay the requisite n the award. If such a course is permitted by this Court the dilatory tactics of the petitioner/judgment debtor will be rendered nugatory. In view of the afore statement made by learned counsel appearing for the decree holder, the civil revision being is disposed of with a direction to affix the appropriate stamp duty on ward in question. Till such time the appropriate stamp duty is paid, Executing Court is directed not to proceed further with the This order is not to be construed as any opinion on merits. The question of law addressed by the parties decided in an appropriate case. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 6 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No p. 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the decree holder/respondent further submits that in order to hasten the disposal of the the decree holder was willing to pay the requisite n the award. If such a course is permitted by this Court the dilatory tactics of the petitioner/judgment debtor will be rendered nugatory. In view of the afore statement made by learned counsel appearing for the decree holder, the civil revision being CR No. 3218 of is disposed of with a direction to affix the appropriate stamp duty on the appropriate stamp duty is paid, the not to proceed further with the said s order is not to be construed as any opinion on merits. addressed by the parties is left open to be (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.07.03 18:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document