Unstamped Arbitration Agreement

Indian laws and arbitration procedures are still being developed and several issues such as those discussed above remain to be resolved. Arbitrators are confident that legislation and justice will work together to pave the way for a smooth arbitration process. With regard, in particular, to requests for a referral, it should be noted that, despite a deficit in the payment of stamp duty, civil courts have granted an interim discharge on the grounds that it can be paid at a later date at the last oral hearing. [4] This principle could have been applied directly to requests for interim measures in arbitrations. Garware appears to create more barriers to arbitration than the parties would otherwise have in the event of an appeal. The Supreme Court of M/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd v.M/S Chandmari Tea Co. P.Ltd was given the opportunity to consider what would happen if the arbitration agreement was not properly sealed. to consider, in accordance with the treaty, whether the contract has been duly stamped. If it is established that the contract is not properly stamped under section 35 of the Stamps Act, the court cannot respond to the contract presented. Therefore, despite the theory of dissociatability, the compromise clause cannot be implemented, since the entire contract must be considered for stamp duty purposes. It was decided that the court could only treat the contract as duly labelled if the deficit stamp duty and penalty are paid either in court or before the collector, in accordance with the procedure set out in sections 35 or 40 of the Stamp Act, and if the defect is cured with respect to the deficit stamp. This particular case underlines the importance of a serious review of the payment of stamp duty on instruments. This decision can be immediately considered as a deferred arbitration start, while a compromise clause in an unstamped agreement is limited in the meantime.

The purpose of stamp duty is to create revenue for the state, and now it can suspend the continuation of the appointment of arbitrators or any other case for stamp duty. This particular judgment is now a law and must be respected; it leaves some questions unanswered. Does Mayavti apply to arbitration tribunals? Can arbitration tribunals or panels raise objections to the stamp in an application to appoint an arbitrator? Are arbitration institutions qualified under the stamp law as authorities that can seize a document? These are all questions that referees ask, and rightly so. The Supreme Court also considered the “existence” of an arbitration agreement as opposed to the “validity” of an arbitration agreement, while the term “existence” was expressed by the Supreme Court of United India Insurance Co Ltd and Ors v Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd and Ors, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1045 (United India Insurance Co), finding that the insurer rejected the claim when a compromise clause existed in the policy because it would not exist in law if the insurer did not accept or accept liability. If a compromise clause is part of an insufficient/unstamped instrument, the compromise clause would exist in law only when the instrument has been duly stamped. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court of La Gautam Landscapes Private Ltd. and Ors v. Shailesh S. Shah and Ors with respect to the decision of a Section 11 request for an unsealed arbitration agreement, and decided that a high court must quarororily seize an unstamped arbitration agreement or an under-stamped arbitration agreement and send it to the winning authority to rule on stamp duty issues and penalty as soon as possible.

Comments are closed.