Chris' Recipes

Bon Appetite!

Impounding Of Agreement To Sell

Written By: Chris - Sep• 23•21

In this case, the Supreme Court negotiated a challenge to a decision of the Bombay High Court that allowed the respondent to appoint an arbitrator under section 11, although the subcontract agreement between the applicant and the respondent containing the arbitration clause was not stamped. However, section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act), prohibited courts from obtaining as evidence documents that were not stamped or insufficiently labelled, unless this had been corrected by the appeasement and payment of the defaulting remission and penalty. The Supreme Court has ruled that the provisions of the law are supposed to protect revenues and are therefore mandatory, and the lack of stamp duty affects the arbitration clause and cannot take effect if they are not corrected from the outset. In the event that an arbitral tribunal has been formed without judicial intervention, the arbitrator is responsible for keeping the document and bringing into force the mandatory provision of the law. Can an arbitration agreement be applied in an unsampled or unreg recorded agreement? The Supreme Court ruled on this issue in SMS Tea Estates (2011). It decided that an arbitration clause would not be invalidated for failure to register a document that was compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act of 1908. A reservation provided for in article 49 of the Registration Act made it possible to obtain documents that were not registered as evidence of ancillary agreements, such as by arbitration. The High Court recently upheld the Supreme Court`s decision in S Satyanarayana &Co. v. West Quay Multiport Private Limited. The Bombay High Court negotiated an application under section 11, in which it was to decide whether the organization of arbitration proceedings in a State entails an obligation to pay stamp duty in the State concerned. In the present case, the contract was performed between the parties of the State of Maharashtra for work outside Maharashtra, and the only thing that had to be done in Maharashtra was the organization of arbitration. The Bombay High Court, which relied on the Supreme Court`s decision, reiterated that “an arbitration clause cannot be wrested from the agreement in which it is embodied or incorporated and treated as a stand-alone agreement, immune to stamp duty or exempt from it.” The Tribunal held that this would be tantamount to saying that, although the rest of the contract must be stamped, it is not necessary to be part of the contract that contains the arbitration clause, which would run counter to the grounds established by the Supreme Court of Garware Ropes.

. . .

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.