A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Dr.
Facts of the Case:
A stream of conflicting judgments finally led to the reference to the seven-judge bench. Briefly, among other cases,
Since both NN Global 1 and Vidya Drolia were judgments by contemporary three-judge benches, the matter was referred to a five-judge bench. In
The five-judge bench in
Issues:
The reference to the Court was to answer whether, if the underlying contract is not stamped, arbitration agreements contained therein would be non-existent, unenforceable, or invalid.
In answering the above issue, the Court also answered the following: -
- Whether an unstamped arbitration agreement is rendered unenforceable pending the payment of stamp duty so as to interpose a bar on the referral court to refer parties to arbitration?
- The scope of judicial review of the referral court in proceedings under sections 8 and 11 of the ACA.
Findings:
The Court noted that it was faced with the issue of harmoniously interpreting the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("ACA") and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ("Stamp Act"). In furtherance of this challenge, it held that the ACA, being a special law, it will have primacy with respect to arbitration agreements over the Stamp Act and the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ("Contract Act") which are general laws.
The Court centred its discussion on the kompetenz-kompetenz (competence-competence) doctrine as encapsulated in section 16 of the ACA. It noted the positive aspect of the doctrine whereby the arbitral tribunal is prioritized in initially deciding challenges to their authority instead of courts. It also noted the corresponding negative aspect of the doctrine which instructs courts to limit their interference at the referral stage by deferring to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal on issues pertaining to challenges to the tribunal's jurisdiction, including on issues of validity and existence of the arbitration agreement. The Court held that the issue of stamping, being a jurisdictional issue, the principle of negative competence-competence required the courts to leave the issue of stamping to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
The Court noted that objections to non-stamping or inadequate stamping of documents require detailed consideration of evidence and submissions and findings on law and fact. It held that the referral court is not the appropriate authority to conduct a mini-trial in regard to the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement and the determination of the same was left to the arbitral tribunal. It further held that obligating the courts to decide on such issues in proceedings under sections 8 or 11 will defeat the legislative intent of the ACA.
The Court held that in view of the non-obstante clause in section 5 of the ACA, sections 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act, which govern impounding of non-stamped or improperly stamped instruments and inadmissibility of such instruments in evidence respectively, will not operate in proceedings under sections 8, 9 or 11 of the ACA.
The Court overruled the decision in NN Global 2 holding, among other reasons, that it misapplied section 5 of the ACA and prioritised the objectives of the Stamp Act while ignoring the purpose of the ACA. It also held that
- Non-stamping or inadequate stamping of an instrument only renders it inadmissible in evidence and not void. An arbitration agreement contained in an unstamped or inadequately stamped instrument can be acted upon. Such agreements are not rendered void or void ab initio or unenforceable.
- Non-stamping or inadequate stamping of an instrument is a curable defect.
- Courts will not be required to deal with issues of non-stamping or inadequate stamping of the arbitration agreement at the referral stage in proceedings under sections 8, 9 and 11 of the ACA. They must only examine whether an arbitration agreement prima facie exists.
- The competence-competence doctrine must be given life to and the question of assessing whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement is to be determined by the
Arbitral Tribunal . - Once the
Arbitral Tribunal has been appointed, it may impound the agreement under section 33 of the Stamp Act if it sees fit to do so. It will thereafter proceed in terms of section 35 of the Stamp Act.
Please find a copy of the judgment, here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr Somdutta Bhattacharyya
11, 1st Floor, Free Press House, 215
400021
Tel: 226736 2222
E-mail: communications@argus-p.com
URL: www.argus-p.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source