Arbitration Agreement Need Not Be Stamped

Arbitration Agreement Need Not Be Stamped

In the course of the 2015 amendment, the arbitrator and the court could rule on the existence of the arbitration agreement; after Amendment 2019, since an institution must appoint an arbitrator, not the courts, it is not known which unit has the power to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement – the courts or the arbitration institution or the arbitrator. Gautam Landscapes Judgement`s approach would allow the start of arbitration, while ensuring that stamp duty is not circumvented. In fact, this was the approach of several cases of the Delhi High Court that were overtaken by Garware. [8] Therefore, the concept of separation from an arbitration agreement is recognized by the main contract by law. Therefore, the issue of stamping could render the main contract unenforceable by a court, but the arbitration agreement would not lose its applicability. The creation of Section 11 (6A) limited the powers of a court when hearing a Section 11 motion and was limited to the existence of an arbitration agreement. By decision M/s Duro Felguera v. Gangavaram Port Ltd4, following a reading of Section 11 (6A), the Supreme Court clarified that Parliament`s intention was to minimize the Court`s intervention at the adjudicator`s appointment stage and, therefore, following Section 11 (6A), the courts should consider only one aspect of the existence of an arbitration agreement. (16 (a) a compromise clause that is part of a contract is treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract; First, with regard to the stamp law, it was decided that the absence of non-cachet could be cured at any stage of the procedure and therefore be ensured at a later date.

For example, z.B. an interim action is granted and the matter is referred to the arbitrator, the arbitrator may object to the non-stamp and send the parties to the seizure at that time, if necessary. [6] Second, with respect to the right of arbitration, it was decided that the right to a Section 9 injunction would not be conferred by the contract, but a statutory right to protect the rights and purpose of the decision.