Share :
Introduction
In a watershed moment for Indian arbitration law, the Supreme Court, through a unanimous decision by a seven-judge bench on December 13, has provided crucial clarity regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements that lack proper stamping. This ruling in In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And The Indian Stamp Act 1899 has far-reaching implications for the legal landscape, setting aside previous interpretations and establishing a new precedent.
Key Aspects of the Judgment
- Void vs. Inadmissible:
One of the pivotal points addressed by the court is the distinction between an agreement being void or unenforceable and being inadmissible in evidence. The court emphatically stated that the absence or inadequacy of stamping does not render the agreement void or unenforceable but makes it inadmissible as evidence. - Curable Defect under the Indian Stamp Act:
The court underscored that the insufficiency of stamping is a curable defect as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. This means that while the agreement may be initially inadmissible, parties have the opportunity to rectify the stamping issue, ensuring that the defect does not permanently invalidate the agreement. - Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal:
Importantly, the court clarified that objections related to the stamping of agreements fall within the purview of the arbitral tribunal rather than being a matter for determination under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act. The primary consideration for the court is to establish the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. - Overruling Previous Judgments:
The decision explicitly overturned the earlier judgment in M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors. The court’s departure from this precedent signals a significant shift in the legal interpretation of the enforceability of unstamped arbitration agreements. - Legislative Intent:
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, in delivering the judgment, highlighted the legislative intent behind the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Act aims to minimize the supervisory role of courts in arbitration contracts. Imposing the obligation on the court to decide stamping issues under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act was deemed contradictory to this legislative objective.
Concurring Opinion
Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s concurring opinion further solidified the majority judgment by asserting that unstamped agreements do not render them void ab initio. This concurrence provides additional support for the court’s stance on the issue.
Background and Context
The case had its roots in a curative petition filed against the 2020 ruling in Bhaskar Raju and Brothers and Anr v. s Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram & Other Charities and Ors. The formation of a seven-judge bench was necessitated to reevaluate the correctness of the earlier decision.
Conclusion
This landmark Supreme Court decision marks a significant milestone in the realm of Indian arbitration law. By reaffirming the enforceability of unstamped arbitration agreements and providing a clear framework for addressing stamping defects, the court has brought much-needed clarity to a previously contentious issue. The ruling aligns with the legislative objective of minimizing court intervention in arbitration matters, heralding a new era in the interpretation of arbitration agreements in India.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
