ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. The appellant being dissatisfied by the order dated 24-9-1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A/93, by the IIIrd A.D.J. to the Court of the District Judge, Chhindwara, has preferred this appeal. Shri Diwakar learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below erred in applying the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Indian Arbitration Act and further erred in holding that the award could be remitted to the arbitrator only for reconsideration and not for rewriting it on Stamp Paper and for its registration. He submits that the Court itself could have impounded the document after recovering the duty and imposing the penalty. It was not required to remit the award to the arbitrator but was required to send it to the Collector, Stamps after recovering duty and imposing penalty. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Dilip Corporation, AIR 1969 SC1238, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Shivlal v. Union of India, 1974 MPLJ 795 = AIR 1975 MP 40 . 2. In the matter of Hindustan Steel Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court has observed as under: "The award which is an 'instrument' within the meaning of the Stamp Act was required to be stamped. Being unstamped, the award could not be received in evidence by the Court, nor could it be acted upon. But the Court was competent to impound it and to send it to the Collector with a certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and penalty levied thereon. On the instrument so received the Collector may adjudge whether it is duly stamped and he may require penalty to be paid thereon, if in his view it has not been duly stamped. If the duty and penalty are paid, the Collector will certify by endorsement on the instrument that the proper duty and penalty have been paid." In the matter of Shivlal (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, placing reliance upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Steel Ltd. has rejected the contention of the objector that the award would not be acted upon as it was not on stamp paper. 3. 3. The two judgments clearly show that the Court dealing with an award which is not properly stamped or is unstamped is competent to impound it and to send it to the Collector with a certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and penalty levied thereon. The Collector after receiving the instrument may adjudge whether it was duly stamped and he may require penalty to be paid thereon, if in his view, it has not been duly stamped. If he is satisfied that proper duty and penalty are paid, the Collector would certify by endorsement on the instrument that proper duty and penalty have been paid. 4. In view of the said two judgments, the approach of the learned trial Court was patently illegal. The order dated 24-9-1995 deserves to and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for consideration of the entire matter, keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Steel Ltd. and in the matter of Shivlal (supra). The appellant is directed to remain present before the trial Court on 16-3-1998. As none appeared for the other side, the trial Court is directed to issue notice to them for their appearance. After effecting service on the respondents, the trial Court shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law, keeping in view the above referred two judgments and the observations of this Court. The appeal is allowed. No costs.