61 855 24 45

Unstamped Arbitration Agreement

In this context, the enigma of the applicability of the compromise clause provided for by an unstamped agreement was highlighted and dealt with in several cases by the Hon`ble High Courts and the Hon`ble Apex Court. This article is an attempt to discuss and analyze recent judgments on this issue with respect to the applicability of the arbitration procedure in an unstamped agreement, and whether such a legal issue, as it has been laid to rest or not, rests. A recent judgment on April 4, 2019 in Gautam Landscapes Private Limited Vs Shailesh Shah and Ors, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1045, by a full bank of Bombay High Court, had decided that a court could respond to a document with an arbitration agreement, while an application is considered in accordance with Sections 9 or 11 (6) of the 1996 Act. , even if the document has not been stamped or sufficiently stamped. It is perhaps plausible to argue that gautam Landscape Judge`s argument for the award of references struck an ideal balance between arbitration, stamp duty and the fair rights of the parties at trial. In light of the judgments in the above cases, it is therefore possible to conclude that the aspect of the enforceability of the arbitration clauses contained in an unstamped agreement in relation to Section 11 appears to have ended, but there remains a mystery when the courts are faced with the same situation, when they have expressly held a Section 9 application in light of the Garware Ropes decision. , in which it has clearly established that independent existence cannot be granted, and the main agreement has been declared unenforceable due to non-payment of stamp duty. Shortly after the decision of the Bombay High Court in Gautam Landscapes, the Supreme Court questioned whether the courts could appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act if the underlying agreement containing the compromise clause was not sufficiently stamped (Gar wallware Ropes v Coastal Marine Constructions). (2) In garware, the Supreme Court considered the issue to a large extent in the new section 11(6A) of the act. Following a thorough review and analysis of the applicable provisions and previous decisions of the Supreme Court and some high courts, the Supreme Court found that the courts cannot appoint an arbitrator on the basis of a compromise clause if the agreement containing such a clause is not sufficiently stamped.

Bezpłatna ocena sprawy

[contact-form-7 404 "Nie znaleziono"]