SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

INDIRA BANERJEE, SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI
Saumya Mining Limited – Appellant
Versus
Srei Equipment Finance Limited – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Rohit Das, Ashapurna Roy and Shradha Rekhechea, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Debasish Kundu, Sr. Adv., Swatarup Banerjee and R.N. Ghose, Advocates.

JUDGMENT :

Sahidullah Munshi, J.

This appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') arises from an order dated 24th September, 2015, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, filed by the respondent (Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.) being A.P. No. 1974 of 2014 (Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. v. Saumya Mining Ltd.). While considering the respondent's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act an objection was raised by the appellant herein that if an arbitration agreement contains a clause for hypothecation the same could not be relied upon unless stamped as per Article 40(b) of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Hon'ble Single Judge answered in the negative and held that -

"Ordinarily such aspect of the matter does not detain an interlocutory application as Section 35 of the Stamp Act applies when a document is tendered in evidence. None-the-less, the objection and the desirability of an adjudication thereon c














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top