Spring over navigationen

Section 5 of the Indian Arbitration Act provides that the judicial authority cannot interfere in arbitration proceedings unless the law itself provides for it. Over the years, Parliament has sought to systematically reduce such judicial interventions by making changes to the law. The first such effort was introduced by The Legislature because of the 2015 amendments, Section 11 (6A), Arbitration Act, to clarify that the power to appoint an arbitrator was an administrative power that gave the courts, with a limited degree of judicial intervention in determining the existence of the agreement. The 2019 amendments also removed this limited scope. The entire process of appointing an arbitrator has been delegated to an arbitration institution. The Bombay High Court found that a compromise clause is dissociated from its main contract. Section 7, paragraph 2 of the Act provides that a compromise clause may consist of a separate contract or agreement. Article 16, paragraph 1, point a) of the act provides that a compromise clause that is part of the contract is considered an agreement, regardless of the other terms of the contract. The absence of stamp duty on the main contract cannot therefore influence the compromise clause. Later, in 2011, the Hon`ble Supreme Court had a remarkable decision, i.e. . M/s.M/s.

SMS Tea Estates Private Limited vs.M/s. Chandmari Tea Co. Private Limited (`M/s.SMS Tea Estate`),[3] the possibility of examining the applicability of the arbitration agreement if the main agreement has not been duly affixed. In accordance with the agreed legal situation, unless the court complies with the existence of a fair and binding arbitration agreement, the court cannot rule on the appointment of an arbitrator on request under section 11 of the Act. In the case of unstamped contracts, the arbitration agreement is not considered a separate party, in accordance with the provisions of Garware regarding the remainder of the contract, and is not a legal contract legally replaceable for all purposes. Therefore, in such cases, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the court concludes that there is no legitimate arbitration agreement and rejects the application for the appointment of an arbitrator in support of the statutory mandate under Section 11 of the 11 of the Act. This case underscores the importance of the need to take more account of and advise the instruments executed by the parties. Although the direct involvement of this decision may include a delayed arbitration start after a compromise clause in an unstamped agreement, the broader implication is delayed the application of the right and the payment of the penalty because of the non-brand at the origin of the 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.

If an agreement is not stamped, the court applies only to the provisions of a coercion decree to protect revenue.