The matter was thereupon heftrd by a Division Bench of the High Court constituted by ;two learned J11dge~ .. Befor~ them it was agreed by both. the parties that the awar\1 rquired to be stamped,, This dispo_sed of the, first question. The .learned J udgos felt that it .as !}pt nepcssary .at that stage of the proceed_ing to ·ana.wer tho second. question,. namely, wether tho award required !Jgistration. In the reult they c,inly, ans,11ere.d the third question. as to whether an awar4 could be remitte- JY!der f!· 16 (1) .(c) of the Arbitration Act to the arbitrator to get it stampec). a,nd, th!Jy aswer;d t)lat question in the affirmative. Thy held,that a want of stamp would be all illegality apparEtnt on the fa9e of the awar-0. and therefore the case would fall under s. i6(l) (c) of the Arbitraion Act. They also held, follqing the case .of Lqhmichand v. Kalloolal (1 ), that the qopying of the award on a stamped pa.per was purely ministerial, and making of an award did not· deprive the arbitra.~or of the authority to copy an award on the requisite ~ta.mp paper. They a.pprov!Jd of the decision in Ram.kumar v. K'U8halchand (1 ). The present ~ppeal is against this judgment of the Division Bench. The only qu.estion argued at the bar was whether the answer of the Division Bench to the third questio.n was correct.
