On November 2, 2026, the High Court of Delhi delivered a pivotal judgment in O.M.P. (COMM) 253/2026 and its connected matters. The dispute centered on a complex legal question regarding stamp duty for multilateral commercial contracts signed across different states. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the Indian Stamp Act or the Maharashtra Stamp Act governed loan agreements executed by parties in both New Delhi and Mumbai.
The case arose from four distinct loan facilities extended by Religare Finvest Limited to entities within the Zee Group on March 15, 2014. During the arbitral proceedings, a major dispute emerged over the adequacy of the stamp duty paid on these commercial agreements. The Sole Arbitrator issued an interim arbitral award on February 28, 2026, holding that the Maharashtra Stamp Act governed the documents. The Arbitrator concluded that the agreements were sufficiently stamped with a fixed duty of 100 rupees since the initial signatures were affixed by the borrowers in Mumbai. Both parties subsequently filed challenges against this finding.
Before addressing the core merits, the Court had to resolve a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the challenges. Religare argued that the stamping issue originally arose from a jurisdictional application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. They contended that a rejection of such a jurisdictional plea could only be challenged after the final arbitral award was published. However, the Court clarified that determining the applicable stamp legislation is a substantive question of law, not a ruling on the tribunal’s own jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Because the Arbitrator conclusively decided this preliminary issue following a remand from the Supreme Court, the decision legally qualified as an interim arbitral award under Section 31(6). Therefore, the Section 34 petition was perfectly maintainable.
On the merits, the Court conducted a detailed examination of the statutory frameworks of both stamp acts. The central issue was whether the affixation of the very first signature in Mumbai dictated the governing stamp law for the entire contract. The Court emphasized the Doctrine of Territorial Nexus, which strictly requires a real and legally sufficient connection between the taxing state and the instrument in question. The Court observed that modern multi state commercial transactions cannot be governed solely by the accidental geographical location of the first signatory.
For an instrument to be fully chargeable, it must be completely executed. While the Zee Group borrowers signed the documents in Mumbai, the Court noted that these signatures alone did not constitute a completed chargeable instrument. The agreements only became binding and fully executed when the lender, Religare, subsequently signed them in New Delhi. Consequently, the requisite territorial connection and taxable event crystallized in Delhi rather than Maharashtra.
Based on this comprehensive analysis, the Court concluded that the loan agreements were executed in Delhi. Therefore, they are legally liable to be stamped according to the Indian Stamp Act as applicable in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Concluding the matter, the Court passed the order setting aside the impugned arbitral award. The petitions filed by Religare were allowed, while the corresponding petitions filed by the Zee Group were dismissed.
Focus Keywords:
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Maharashtra Stamp Act
- Interim Arbitral Award
- Section 34 Petition
Read the judgment here.
More coverage here.