Thread by @barandbench

A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court to shortly deliver verdict in the case concerning the legal validity of an arbitration agreement in an unstamped contract.

#SupremeCourtofIndia #SupremeCourt #arbitration

Justice Joseph: We have as many judgments as there are judges (in court).

[There are four opinions]

Justice Joseph: My brothers Ajay and Ravikumar are concurring with me.

Order: we approve of paragraphs 22-23 of Garware and similar paragraphs in Drolia.

Certified copy must indicate the stamp duty paid, if it does not do so court should not act on such a copy.

#SupremeCourtofIndia

Order: Court is duly empowered to act under the Stamp Act if a document is not stamped.

A document which is not stamped cannot be acted upon unless the following conditions are met.

Arbitration agreement not validated by stamp act would stand non est in law.

Order: We make it clear that we have not pronounced on Section 9 of the Act. We appreciate the services of the Amicus Mr Gourab Banerjee for his assistance.

Justice Ravikumar: I fully agree with my brother. I only have an addendum on some issues.

#SupremeCourtofIndia… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Justice Ravikumar: With respect to secondary evidence that is the certified copy ... Why it is specific as mentioned in the scheme, i have referred to section 79 of principle act. Presumption of correctness is there, therefore it can be acted upon.

Justice Ajay Rastogi: I have not been able to concur with my brothers.

Such examination should not open the door wide open for Judicial examination. My conclusions are:

Existence of certified copy of Arbitration agreement whether unstamped or not is enforceable for appointment… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Justice Rastogi: All the preliminary maintainability issued of the document are referrable to the arbitrator. Decison in Tea Estates stands overruled. We appreciate the services of the Amicus.

#SupremeCourtofIndia #SupremeCourt

Justice Roy dissents: I had the privilege opinion of reading the erudite judgements. I cannot agree with the majority opinion that has been concurred.
Let the minority opinion sell and appeal to the future.

Objective behind 1996 Act was to inter alia avoid procedural… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Justice Roy: Contours of the jurisdiction of the judge leading arbitration cannot be governed by confusion and uncertainty. The current fractured verdict as we see could not provide clarity on this issue. Larger bench reference is however not common. But issue is much to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Justice Roy: Garware wrongly applied the principle. Arbitration agreement should not be rendered void for such reasons.

#SupremeCourtofIndia #SupremeCourtofIndia

Justice Joseph: The refrence to the Constitution Bench stands answered in the basis of the majority opinion and concurred by Justice CT Ravikumar.

#SupremeCourtofIndia