Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements in India: N.N. Global Analysis
3rd-Year Law Student at National law university Odisha
In a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India’s Larger Bench in the case of N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v Indo Unique Flame Ltd and Others (2023) ibclaw.in 56 SC, the majority of 3:2 held that an unstamped document that is required to have stamp duty and includes an arbitration clause cannot be considered a legally enforceable contract under Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act 1872. As a result, it is unenforceable under Section 2(g) of the Contract Act. This ruling was reached as a consequence of a referral to the Larger Bench, which took into account the contradictory judgements of other Supreme Court of India benches.
Additionally, it was determined that the regulations stated in Section 33 and the restriction mentioned in Section 35 of the Stamp Act 1899 (“Stamp Act”), which pertain to documents subject to stamp duty under Section 3 in conjunction with the Schedule of the Stamp Act, would deem the arbitration agreement within such a document legally void unless the document is validated according to the requirements of the Stamp Act.
The Unstamped Effect: Arbitration Agreement
In the SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd v Chandmari Tea Co. (2017) ibclaw.in 476 SC case, the Supreme Court ruled that unstamped agreements cannot be enforced by the court unless the required stamp duty and penalty are paid. This includes the arbitration agreement within the unstamped substantive agreement/instrument.
In the Garware Wall Ropes Ltd v Coastal Marine Construction & Engg (2019) ibclaw.in 154 SC case, the court recognized that the deficiency in stamp duty can be rectified by paying the necessary amount. Once the deficit stamp duty is paid, the arbitration process can proceed. This case followed the precedent set in the SMS case.
However, in the N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v Indo Unique Flame Ltd and Others (N.N Case – I), a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court rejected the law established in the SMS Tea case and expressed dissatisfaction with the conclusions reached in the Garware case.
According to the judgement in N.N Case – I, the arbitration agreement, as a distinct arrangement between the parties, is not subject to the payment of stamp duty. Failing to pay stamp duty does not render the arbitration clause null and void. The court also provided instructions for dealing with unstamped agreements at the pre-reference stage.
The judgement in N.N Case – I distinguished between situations falling under Section 9 and Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. It stated that an application filed under Section 9, which deals with urgent concerns, requires the court to grant interim relief first and then address the issue of stamp duty payment by impounding the relevant document. However, in Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corporation (2020) ibclaw.in 78 SC case, another bench chose to adhere to the ruling in the Garware case, stating that the legal principles established in the Garware case cannot be considered per incuriam.
N.N. Global Case – Larger Bench Analysis
The Larger Bench examined whether an arbitration agreement within an unstamped document is invalid or unenforceable until the stamp duty for the primary contract is settled, considering the statutory limitation in Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
Justices Joseph Kurian, Aniruddha Bose, and CT Ravikumar held that an arbitration agreement in an unstamped document lacks enforceability. They concluded that the Stamp Act generates revenue for the state, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 does not supersede it. They also stated that the doctrine of separability does not apply in this case.
Justice Joseph and Justice Bose’s reasoning:
An arbitration agreement is separate from the underlying contract. The absence of stamp duty does not invalidate the arbitration agreement but renders it unenforceable. The court can retain the unstamped document and instruct the parties to pay the stamp duty within a specified timeframe to regain enforceability.
Justice Ravikumar’s reasoning:
An arbitration agreement is part of the underlying contract and cannot be enforced if the contract is not stamped. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not apply to unstamped contracts. However, Justice Joseph and Justice Bose held that the arbitration agreement in this case can be severed and enforced.
Justices Ajay Rastogi and Hrishikesh Roy dissented, stating that an arbitration agreement in an unstamped document can be enforced. They argued that the objective of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is to promote arbitration and that the doctrine of separability applies.
Justice Rastogi’s reasoning:
The doctrine of separability, which holds that an arbitration agreement is a separate and distinct agreement from the underlying contract, applies even if the underlying contract is unstamped. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996 gives the arbitral tribunal the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections to the existence, validity, or scope of the arbitration agreement. He concluded that the majority decision had effectively rendered the Arbitration Act nugatory, as it would make it impossible for an arbitral tribunal to rule on the validity of an arbitration agreement in an unstamped instrument.
Justice Roy’s reasoning:
The doctrine of severability allows the separation of an invalid provision from a contract. In this case, the arbitration agreement is not integral to the underlying contract, and the parties could have executed a separate agreement. Thus, the doctrine of severability can be applied to preserve the arbitration agreement. Justice Roy argued that the majority’s ruling discourages arbitration and penalizes parties for unstamped contracts without justification.
Difference Between the Minority and Majority Judgement
The N.N. Global Mercantile v. M.S. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. case revolves around the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in an unstamped document.
The majority opinion, presented by Justices Joseph Kurian, Aniruddha Bose, and C.T. Ravikumar, holds that an arbitration agreement in an unstamped document is not enforceable. They base their reasoning on the understanding that the Stamp Act of 1899 serves as a fiscal legislation for revenue generation. They state that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not supersede the Stamp Act, and the doctrine of separability does not apply in this case.
In contrast, the minority viewpoint, expressed by Justices Ajay Rastogi and Hrishikesh Roy, argues that an arbitration agreement in an unstamped document is enforceable. They emphasize the objective of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to promote arbitration as a means of dispute resolution. They contend that the Act should be interpreted in a way that supports arbitration, and they recognize the applicability of the separability doctrine.
The majority judgment reaffirms the position established in SMS Tea Estates v. Chandmari Tea Co., but it introduces court intervention at the pre-reference stage, causing delays in arbitrator appointments. The minority judgments support the principles of severability and separability, aligning with international standards and reducing judicial interference. They argue that the majority’s viewpoint may not align with the true purpose of the Act.
The majority’s verdict on the enforceability of arbitration agreements in unstamped documents presents considerable challenges for parties seeking to utilize arbitration as a means of dispute resolution. Their reliance on an expansive interpretation of the Stamp Act, which extends beyond its intended scope, carries adverse implications. It obstructs the establishment of legally binding contracts and the enforcement of contractual rights. Moreover, the majority’s decision contradicts the well-established separability doctrine, which permits arbitration agreements to exist independently from the underlying contract. In the case of N.N. Global Mercantile, despite the underlying contract being unenforceable due to the absence of stamping, the distinct arbitration agreement remained valid.
Regarding the minority perspectives and their reasoning, they hold significant persuasive value. However, it can be contended that the question of whether an arbitration agreement is always considered an integral part of the underlying contract remains uncertain, as suggested by certain precedents indicating its potential separability. Even if it is deemed to be an inseparable component of the contract, non-payment of stamp duty on the contract may not necessarily render the arbitration agreement invalid. There is legal precedent indicating that the arbitration agreement can be severed from an invalidated contract. Furthermore, even if the arbitration agreement is not severable, non-payment of stamp duty may not automatically result in its invalidation.
The judgement in the case demonstrates a complex legal discourse surrounding the stamping and impounding of arbitration agreements during the pre-reference stage. The majority perspective places significant emphasis on the requirement of stamping and deems unstamped agreements as unenforceable. Conversely, the minority viewpoint argues for deferring the stamping process to the arbitrator’s stage and raises concerns regarding jurisdictional issues and legal certainty. These divergent opinions highlight the intricate nature of the law and underscore the necessity for further examination and potential legislative amendments to effectively address the matter.
The Larger Bench’s decision introduces new considerations regarding the connection between substantive contracts and the arbitration clauses they contain. Moving forward, parties must ensure compliance with the mandatory stamp duty requirements of the Stamp Act. Additionally, the inclusion of a separate arbitration agreement may need to be contemplated to safeguard the interests of the involved parties.
While the Stamp Act serves fiscal and revenue purposes, the fact that non-payment of stamp duty is a curable defect implies that an interpretation favouring expeditious arbitration could have been beneficial. Such an approach may have propelled India as a prominent international arbitration hub.
Disclaimer: The Opinions expressed in this article are that of the author(s). The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of IBC Laws (http://www.ibclaw.in). The entire contents of this document have been prepared on the basis of the information existing at the time of the preparation. The author(s) and IBC Laws (http://www.ibclaw.in) do not take responsibility of the same. Postings on this blog are for informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to constitute legal or investment advice. Discussions on, or arising out of this, blog between contributors and other persons shall not create any attorney-client relationship.