In Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Religare Finvest Limited & Anr. (O.M.P. (COMM) 253/2026 and connected petitions, pronounced 2 November 2026), Justice Om Prakash Shukla of the Delhi High Court addressed a batch of cross-petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 directed against a common interim arbitral award of 28 February 2026 on the stamping of 2014 loan agreements. The court held the petitions maintainable: an interim award under Section 31(6) is an “arbitral award” open to challenge, and the stamp-law question is not a ruling on the tribunal’s own jurisdiction.
The case in one view
| Case | Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Religare Finvest Ltd. & Anr., O.M.P. (COMM) 253/2026 with connected cross-petitions |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Justice Om Prakash Shukla |
| Decided | Reserved 3 August 2026; pronounced 2 November 2026 |
| Challenge to | Common interim arbitral award dated 28 February 2026 on the stamping of loan agreements dated 15 March 2014 |
| Key holding | Section 34 petitions against the interim award held maintainable; stamping not a Section 16 jurisdictional ruling |
A decade-old stamping battle
In March 2014, Religare extended four loan facilities to Zee group companies under loan agreements executed on 15 March 2014. The stamping of those agreements became a procedural war of its own: a 2020 order under Section 16 holding the Maharashtra Stamp Act applicable, a 2022 judgment of the High Court holding the Indian Stamp Act applicable, and a series of Supreme Court orders in 2022 that shaped a limited remand. The arbitrator’s interim award of 28 February 2026 answered the remanded question: the agreements were governed by the Maharashtra Stamp Act, attracting a fixed duty of Rs 100 under Article 5(h)(B), and the duty paid was sufficient. The judgment records that “the scope of the remand was limited to the question of the applicable stamp law and the adequacy of stamp duty thereof”.
Both camps attacked the interim award from opposite directions — the borrowers contending the correct entry was Article 5(h)(A)(iv)(b) with ad valorem duty of 0.2%, Religare contesting the stamp-law holding from the other side.
Holding one: an interim award is challengeable now
The threshold objection was that a Section 34 petition does not lie against an interim award. The court rejected it. An interim award is an “arbitral award” within Section 2(1)(c); Section 31(6) empowers the tribunal to decide “any matter” conclusively by interim award; and a conclusive determination of the applicable stamp law fits that description. Importantly, the court noted that such a decision “does not, in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the tribunal to continue” — the reference proceeds while the interim award faces scrutiny.
Holding two: stamping is not a Section 16 question
The companion objection sought to route the matter through Section 16 — treating the stamping determination as a ruling on the tribunal’s own jurisdiction. The court read In Re: Interplay narrowly: the stamp-law question in this reference “has nothing to do with the Tribunal’s own jurisdiction”. Not every substantive stamping issue is a jurisdictional objection; here it was a question on the merits of the remanded issue. The conclusion followed: “the present batch of cross-objection petitions filed under Section 34 of the Act are maintainable”, and the court proceeded to examine the rival stamp-law contentions.
Scope of this note: this article addresses the maintainability holdings of the judgment. The court’s detailed treatment of the competing entries under the Maharashtra Stamp Act and the Indian Stamp Act proceeds from that threshold and should be read in full from the judgment itself.
Why the maintainability ruling matters
The larger arc
Stamping objections have shadowed Indian arbitration for a decade, through SMS Tea Estates, Garware, N.N. Global and the seven-judge course correction in In Re: Interplay. This judgment shows where that arc has settled in day-to-day Commercial Division practice: stamping no longer stalls references at the threshold, but it remains live on the merits — and when a tribunal resolves it by interim award, Section 34 is the door through which the losing side may immediately walk.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an interim award under Section 31(6)?
Section 31(6) permits an arbitral tribunal to make an interim arbitral award on any matter on which it may make a final award — deciding one discrete issue conclusively while the reference continues. Here, the interim award of 28 February 2026 decided which stamp statute governed the loan agreements and whether the duty paid was sufficient.
Can a Section 34 petition be filed against an interim award without waiting for the final award?
Yes. The court held that an interim award falls within the definition of "arbitral award" in Section 2(1)(c) and can be challenged under Section 34. Waiting is in fact risky: the three-month limitation under Section 34(3) runs from receipt of that award, and a conclusive interim determination left unchallenged can bind the parties.
Why did it matter whether stamping was a Section 16 issue?
Rulings on the tribunal's own jurisdiction under Section 16 follow a different remedial route. The court held the stamp-law determination "has nothing to do with the Tribunal's own jurisdiction", reading In Re: Interplay narrowly — not every substantive stamping question is a jurisdictional objection — which cleared the way for the Section 34 challenge.
What was the underlying dispute?
Loan facilities extended by Religare to Zee group companies under agreements of March 2014. After years of litigation over whether the Indian Stamp Act or the Maharashtra Stamp Act governed, the arbitrator held the Maharashtra Act applicable with a fixed Rs 100 duty, and the duty paid sufficient; both sides then filed cross-petitions under Section 34 on the stamp-law holding.