M/S SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED v. RIOGLASS SOLAR SA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ss. 34, 48, 49
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ss. 1, 1(2), 3(c)
- Arbitration Act, 1899
- Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937
- Merchant Shipping Act, 1894
- Indian Registration of Ships Act, 1841
- Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 s. 2
- Bombay District Municipal Act, 1873
- Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Indian Arbitration Act, 1899
- Arbitration Act, 1940
- Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961
- Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
Judgment
M/S SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED v. RIOGLASS SOLAR SA 751 award is sought to be enforced. In no manner does Section 47 interdict the payment of stamp duty if it is otherwise payable in law. This argument must thus be rejected. Equally, the argument that under Section 48(2)(b), even if stamp duty is payable on a foreign award, it would not be contrary to the public policy of India, must be rejected. The fundamental policy of Indian law, as has been held in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. makes it clear that if a statute like the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 dealing with the economy of the country is concerned, it would certainly come within the expression “fundamental policy of Indian law”. The Stamp Act, 1899, being a fiscal statute levying stamp duty on instruments, is also an Act which deals with the economy of India, and would, on a parity of reasoning, be an Act reflecting the fundamental policy of Indian law. [Para 24] [769-D-G] Narayan Trading Co. v. Abcom Trading Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 2 MP LJ 252 – approved. Senior Electric Inspector and Ors. v. Laxminarayan Chopra and Anr. [1962] 3 SCR 146 – distinguished.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.