A contract signed in two states can leave a deceptively simple question: which state’s stamp law applies? A Delhi High Court judgment shows why picking the first signature on the page is not enough. Nor is replacing it with a blanket rule that the last signature always wins.
The November 2, 2026 single-judge decision by Justice Om Prakash Shukla concerned four loan agreements between Religare Finvest and four Zee Group companies. Its useful business lesson is about reading the complete instrument and the applicable law, not choosing a convenient place to sign.
The Breakdown
The agreements were dated March 15, 2014. The borrowers signed in Mumbai, followed by the lender in New Delhi on the same day. An interim arbitral award in February 2026 applied the Maharashtra Stamp Act and treated ₹100 on each agreement as sufficient.
The High Court set that award aside. On these facts, it held that the agreements were executed in Delhi and had to be stamped under the Indian Stamp Act as applicable in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
That outcome came from the nature of these agreements. The Court considered the borrowers’ signatures alone insufficient to complete the chargeable instruments without the lender’s execution. It found the required connection with Delhi when Religare signed there.
Why This Matters
The Court’s wider reasoning is more qualified than a first-versus-last-signature contest. It said it found no binding authority making either the first signature’s state or the final necessary signature’s state automatically decisive for every multi-state instrument.
Instead, the nature of the document and its legally relevant connection with the taxing state matter. An instrument executed in one state can also subsequently attract stamp duty in another. The judgment does not create a single nationwide rate or a general exemption for interstate contracts.
The Court used electronic signing to explain the problem with a purely geographical shortcut. Someone can sign while temporarily travelling, even though the transaction was negotiated elsewhere. That observation concerned how to interpret the law; it does not mean these 2014 agreements were digitally signed, or that digital documents escape stamp duty.
The document includes its schedules
Another part of the decision is useful for finance and contracting teams. The Court rejected the arbitrator’s treatment of the loan agreements as not quantifying a specific amount. The Facility Schedules of Terms stated the amounts, and the agreements required those schedules to be read with them.
A practical lesson follows: assessing a contract from its signature page or main body alone can omit terms that form part of the bargain. Keeping the agreement, incorporated schedules and execution record together makes the arrangement easier to assess. That is an editorial takeaway, not a new compliance checklist imposed by the Court.
The Crunch
This is a judgment about particular loan agreements, not permission to select a state’s stamp law by rearranging signatures. For a business signing across states, the question is what instrument was completed, what its full terms say and how the applicable law connects it to each jurisdiction.
The November 2 ruling sets aside the challenged interim award; it does not decide recovery of the loans. An individual contract needs its own legal assessment.
General information, not advice on a specific transaction.
Related categories: Economy & Markets
Leave your thoughts