Back
J. K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Tarini Prasad Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
Sunflag Iron And Steel Respondent Company Limited – Respondent
Key Points: - The Arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide objections regarding stamping; non-stamping is a curable defect and does not void the arbitration (non-stamping is curable; can be cured by stamping later) (!) (!) - Writ jurisdiction to interfere with Section 16 orders is limited to exceptional circumstances and perverse/inherent lack of jurisdiction; otherwise, parties should await final award and challenge under Section 34/37 (injunction of proceedings not generally allowed) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Stamp Act: non-stamped or inadequately stamped instruments are inadmissible in evidence under Section 35; but they are not void; defect can be cured; stamping objections fall within Arbitral Tribunal's domain; preserve remedy under Section 34 of A&C Act (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J
1. An objection raised under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961[For short, ‘the A and C Act’] that various agreements executed between the parties were insufficiently stamped was turned down by the learned Arbitrator. A challenge was raised to the said order by the objector through a writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India2[For short, ‘the Constitution’]. A learned Single Judge of the High Court entertained the writ petition and upheld the objection raised under Section 16 of the A and C Act. Impounding of the said agreements was directed. The other party challenged this decision in a writ appeal that was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The objector, being aggrieved, has approached this Court.
2. Leave granted.
3. Two issues arise for consideration in the present appeal, namely (a) whether in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a challenge to an order passed under Section 16 of the A and C Act ought to have been entertained, especially when the Arbitrator was seized of the arbitration proceedings? and (b) the learned Single Judge havi
(1) Non-stamping or inadequate stamping of arbitration agreement is merely a curable defect – Arbitrator is duly empowered to decide objection as regards insufficient stamping of agreement.(2) Jurisd....
The Arbitral Tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose, a....
Section 12 sets out grounds of challenge to person appointed as arbitrator and duty of an arbitrator appointed, to disclose any disqualification he may have.
Point of Law : Arbitration - Concession Agreement – Maintainability of writ - Power under Article 227 of Constitution in a rare and exceptional circumstance - When an alternative and efficacious reme....
The court established that challenges to an arbitrator's jurisdiction under Section 16 can only be raised after a final award, not as an interim appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for exceptional circumstances to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227, the limitations on judicial interference in ar....
Arbitration dispute - Jurisdiction - though there was no patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, the High Court who ought to have dismissed the writ petition.
Judicial review under Article 227 can intervene in arbitration matters to ensure justice, particularly regarding the acceptance of amendments and additional documents.
Courts should minimize intervention in arbitration until awards are pronounced, only assessing arbitrability when objections about document validity arise under the Arbitration Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
