Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s) CP 44/23: Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Debesh Panda, AOR Ms. Amrita Panda, Adv. Mr. Naman Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Snehal Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Totala, Adv. Mr. Rahul Totala, Adv. Mr. Udbhav Gady, Adv. Mr. Ashish Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Sonali Mathur, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sijoria, Adv. Mr. Garv Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Eshan A. Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Arijit Sanyal, Adv. Ms. Arundhati Kale, Adv. Mr. Omar Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Miglani, Adv. Mr. Pranav Mago, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Aggrawal, Adv. Mr. Sri Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sooraj Sharma, Adv. Ms. Hina Shaheen, Adv. Ms. Yamini Daga, Adv. Mr. Shubhra Swami Paranjpe, Adv. Mr. Raghav Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Payal Chawla, Adv.
Arb P 25/23 : Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Adv. Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR Mr. Asav Rajan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) R-1,2&4 in CP 44/23: Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR Mr. Sulabh Rewari, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Adv. Mr. Rongon Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Mansvini Jain, Adv. Mr. Atharv Gupta, Adv.
R-1 in Arb P 25/23 : Mr. Ravi Raghunath , AOR
(Amicus in NN Global) : Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. T S Sundaram, Adv. Mr. Subhro Prokas Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Venkata Supreeth, Adv. Mr. Mohit Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Talukdar, Adv. Mr. Shashank Garg, Adv. Mr. Shivank Dideli, Adv.
Intervenors : Mr. Darius J. Khambata, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijnan Jha, AOR Mr. Ankitesh Ojha, Adv. Ms. Shreya Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Tushar Hathiramani, Adv. Ms. Shreenandini Mukhopadhyay, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Shah, Adv. Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv. Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Adv. Mr. Neil Chatterjee, Adv. Tansi Fotedar, Adv. Satyender Saharan, Adv. Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Arya, Adv. Mr. Premlal Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Ms. Bani Dixit, Adv. Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Slaria, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sujal, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Alok Tripathi, AOR Mr. Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv. Ms. Roohe Hina Dua, Adv. Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv. Mr. Randeep Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Arav Pandit, Adv. Mr. Sahib Kochhar, Adv. Ms. Dhanakshi Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Shreya Arora, Adv. Mr. Pratham Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Mr. Sameer Rohtagi, Adv. Ms. Simran Brar, Adv. Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Neral, Adv. Ms. Sanya Dua, Adv. Mr. Swastik Dalai, Adv. For M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Rahul G Tanwani, Adv. Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., AOR Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Shekhar, Adv. Mr. VC Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Sindoora Vnl, Adv. Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Thakar, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Mr. Prastut Dalvi, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Manan Sanghai, Adv. Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Ms. Mugdha Pande, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Khanna, Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Mr. Suyash Vyas, Adv. Mr. Nishant Singh, AOR Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Jayesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Shubhang Tandon, Adv. Mr. Guneet Sidhu, Adv. Mr. George Pothan Poothicote, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashu Pathak, Adv. Mr. Gauhar Mirza, Adv. Ms. Hiral Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sukanya Singh, Adv. Ms. Nilakshi Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rohit Rahar, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Chahar, Adv. M/S. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR M/S. Kmnp Law, AOR

Certainly. Based on the provided document, the key points are as follows:

1. Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are inadmissible in evidence under the relevant statutory provisions. However, such agreements are not void or unenforceable from the outset, as non-stamping or inadequate stamping constitutes a curable defect (!) (!) (!) .

2. The distinction between inadmissibility and voidness is crucial. An instrument not duly stamped cannot be admitted as evidence but remains valid in law unless it is inherently void due to other legal reasons. Non-stamping affects admissibility, not the validity of the instrument itself (!) (!) .

3. The purpose of the Stamp Act is primarily fiscal, aimed at revenue collection. Its provisions, including those relating to impounding and certification, are designed to ensure compliance with stamp duty requirements without rendering the underlying instrument invalid (!) (!) (!) .

4. The doctrine of separability or severability of arbitration agreements from the underlying contract is a fundamental principle. This presumption allows arbitration agreements to survive the invalidity or termination of the main contract, provided the arbitration clause is independent and the parties intended it to be so (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. The principle of competence-competence grants arbitral tribunals the authority to rule on their jurisdiction, including questions about the existence and validity of arbitration agreements. This principle supports minimal judicial interference and emphasizes the tribunal’s autonomy (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. Judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings is limited by statutory provisions, particularly emphasizing that courts should only examine the prima facie existence of arbitration agreements at the initial stages. Issues related to stamping, validity, or enforceability are generally reserved for the arbitral tribunal unless explicitly provided otherwise (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

7. The law favors a harmonious construction of different statutes—namely, the Arbitration Act, Stamp Act, and Contract Act—by giving precedence to the special law (Arbitration Act) over general laws, and by interpreting provisions in a manner that aligns with legislative intent and purpose (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

8. The interpretation of statutory provisions, especially those with non-obstante clauses, requires a careful analysis of legislative intent, purpose, and the overall context. Such clauses are meant to override conflicting laws but are to be applied within the limits of legislative policy and purpose (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

9. The effect of non-compliance with stamping requirements is a curable defect. Once the stamp duty and any applicable penalties are paid, the instrument can be admitted in evidence, registered, or acted upon, provided the issue of stamping is properly addressed at the appropriate stage (!) (!) (!) (!) .

10. The procedural provisions related to the impounding, certification, and certification process under the Stamp Act are designed to facilitate revenue collection while allowing instruments to remain in legal existence for evidentiary purposes, subject to compliance (!) (!) (!) (!) .

11. The role of courts at the pre-arbitral stage, especially under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, is primarily to determine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. Detailed examination of issues such as stamping or validity is generally delegated to the arbitral tribunal, unless statutory provisions specify otherwise (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

12. The legislative amendments and judicial interpretations aim to limit judicial interference, promote procedural efficiency, and uphold the autonomy of arbitration proceedings. This includes restricting courts from delving into substantive issues like stamping or validity at the initial stages (!) (!) (!) .

13. The law recognizes that agreements or instruments may be inadmissible in evidence due to non-stamping but still remain valid in law unless they are inherently void. The process of stamping and the associated penalties are meant to ensure compliance, not to invalidate the instrument outright (!) (!) (!) .

14. The principles of judicial consistency, certainty, and predictability are central to the interpretation of laws, especially in commercial and routine matters. Courts are guided to interpret statutes harmoniously and to give effect to legislative intent without undermining the purpose of the statutes involved (!) (!) (!) .

15. The legislative intent behind the Arbitration Act, the Stamp Act, and the Contract Act is to balance revenue collection with the facilitation of speedy dispute resolution. The law favors giving primacy to the Arbitration Act in matters of arbitration agreements, especially regarding their enforceability and procedural validity (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively reflect the legal principles governing the admissibility, enforceability, and procedural treatment of arbitration agreements and instruments under the relevant statutes, emphasizing the importance of legislative intent, procedural efficiency, and the autonomy of arbitral proceedings.