Blog

This case deals with the interplay between arbitration agreements governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the stamping requirements under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Specifically, the question revolves around the validity and enforceability of arbitration agreements contained within instruments that are unstamped or inadequately stamped.

The case, In re: Interplay between arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899 [Civil Appeal No. 1599 of 2020], originated from a dispute regarding the enforceability of an arbitration agreement embedded in an unstamped work order in N N Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. This dispute raised questions about whether arbitration agreements within unstamped instruments could be deemed non-existent, unenforceable, or invalid if the underlying contract was not properly stamped.

The context of this issue involves conflicting interpretations from various judicial precedents. In N N Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement, being distinct from the underlying contract, would not be invalidated solely due to the non-payment of stamp duty on the instrument containing it. However, earlier cases such as SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd. and Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd. took a different stance, asserting that an arbitration agreement within an unstamped contract could not be enforced until the underlying contract was duly stamped.

Following conflicting interpretations among various bench decisions, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench for resolution. Subsequent judgments, including Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation and Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram v. Bhaskar Raju and Brothers, further compounded the issue, prompting a reconsideration of the legal position.

Ultimately, the case proceeded to a seven-Judge Bench to address the fundamental question of law concerning the validity and enforceability of arbitration agreements in unstamped or inadequately stamped instruments. This pivotal issue required a comprehensive examination of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and the underlying principles of arbitration law in India.

The court examined the issue of the admissibility of agreements that are either not stamped or inadequately stamped, in light of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. It clarified that such agreements are not automatically rendered void or unenforceable; rather, non-stamping or inadequate stamping is considered a curable defect. The court emphasized that objections related to stamping do not fall within the purview of Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act. Instead, the court determined that the primary consideration should be whether the arbitration agreement exists prima facie. Additionally, the court held that any objections regarding the stamping of the agreement should be addressed by the arbitral tribunal, indicating a shift in jurisdictional authority.

Furthermore, the court overturned the decisions in NN Global 2 and SMS Tea Estates, asserting that they no longer hold precedential value. Additionally, specific paragraphs of the Garware Wall Ropes case were overruled to the extent that they conflicted with the court’s current interpretation.

The court concluded that agreements lacking proper stamping are admissible in evidence, with non-stamping or inadequate stamping being viewed as a curable defect. It affirmed that objections regarding stamping should be addressed by the arbitral tribunal rather than the court. Moreover, the court issued administrative directions to the Registry to seek guidance from the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for the appropriate adjudication of similar matters in the future.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aditi

click here to view the judgment