Skip to main content

Court Can Appoint Independent Arbitrator Only After Resorting To The Procedure In Arbitration Agreement

In CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3303 OF 2019, UNION OF INDIA vs PARMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, the lease agreement has arbitration clause but the agreement was not stamped. So question was raised as to the effect of an arbitration clause contained in a contract which requires to be stamped. The Supreme Court observed that as per judgment in SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd., it has been already decided that while arbitration clause in an agreement is to be treated as a independent agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, which is independent of the main contract or instrument, and further an arbitration agreement in an unregistered but compulsorily registerable document can be acted upon and enforced for the purpose of dispute resolution by arbitration, however for a unstamped lease deed, which contains an arbitration clause, the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act require the Judge hearing the Section 11 application to impound the agreement and ensure that stamp duty and penalty (if any) are paid thereon before proceeding with the Section 11 application. However, the question now remained whether Section 11(6A), which has been introduced by way of the Amendment Act, 2015, has removed the basis of this judgment, so that the stage at which the instrument is to be impounded is not by the Judge hearing the Section 11 application, but by an arbitrator who is appointed under Section 11, as has been held by the impugned judgment.

The Supreme Court going through various judgements and the Law Commission reports decided that it is clear, therefore, that the introduction of Section 11(6A) does not, in any manner, deal with or get over the basis of the judgment in SMS Tea Estates (supra), which continues to apply even after the amendment of Section 11(6A). Therefore, the court can act upon the agreement as well as the arbitration clause contained in it only after proper stamp duty and penalty (ir any) is paid, as a result the various powers provided to an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act also does not come into play till such time.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more