The SC in In re interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899[1] held that arbitration agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are not rendered void ab initio or unenforceable, and the same is a curable defect.[2] The SC observed that under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, a Court is only required to undertake a prima facie standard of review.[3] Therefore, an objection as to stamping does not fall for determination of the Courts under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act, but falls within the ambit of the Arbitral Tribunal.[4] The SC overruled the decisions in N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Limited and Ors.[5] and SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd.[6]
[1] In re interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899, Curative Petition (C) No. 44 of 2023.
[2] Paragraph 48, In re interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899, Curative Petition (C) No. 44 of 2023.
[3] Paragraph 195, In re interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899, Curative Petition (C) No. 44 of 2023.
[4] Paragraph 195, In re interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899, Curative Petition (C) No. 44 of 2023.
[5] N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Limited and Ors., (2023) 7 SCC 1.
[6] SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd., (2011) 14 SCC 66.