Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: N N Global in Delhivery Ltd. vs Hanel Logistics Llp on 22 August, 2023Matching Fragments
1. These matters have been listed together inasmuch as the relevant arbitration agreements on the basis of which these petitions have been filed are admittedly unstamped and/or have been incorporated in an instrument/agreement which is unstamped. As such, these have to be dealt with in the light of, and in consonance with the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd1 (hereinafter referred to as „N.N. Global').
168. In a given case, the Court has power under Para 5 of the Scheme, to seek information from a party, even in regard to stamp duty.
169. We make it clear that we have not pronounced on the matter with reference to Section 9 of the Act. The reference to the Constitution Bench shall stand answered accordingly."
4. In the above conspectus, it is to be examined as to how the statutory mandate under Section 11(13)2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Section 11(13) of the Act read as "An application made under this section for appointment of an 1996 (the „Act‟), which aims at expeditious disposal of petitions under Section 11 of the Act, is harmonized with the obligation imposed vide the judgement of N. N. Global i.e. to act in tune with the statutory dictate of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the „Stamp Act‟). Some possible issues that arise for consideration in the aftermath of the N.N. Global judgement were identified and set out in the order dated 30.05.2023 as under:-
6. As unambiguously held in N.N. Global, the statutory mandate of Section 33 of the Stamp Act, is to impound agreements which are unstamped or insufficiently stamped. This Court is obliged to do so, especially considering that N.N. Global clearly holds that while entertaining a petition under Section 11 of the Act, the function being performed by the Court is akin to "receiving evidence". In this regard, reference may be made to the observations made in the concurring opinion of C.T. Ravikumar J., wherein, it has been held as under:-
16. It would be open for this Court to exercise either of the above options, as may be deemed expedient depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
17. In appropriate cases, particularly where the quantum of stamp duty payable is not in dispute, it may be apposite for this Court to take recourse to the latter of the two options set out hereinabove, to enable deposit of the requisite stamp duty in Court and thereafter to act on the basis of the instrument containing the arbitration agreement. In this regard, it is notable that para 147 of N.N. Global, specifically holds that it would be open for the Court seized of a petition under Section 11 of the Act, to ensure adherence to Section 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act under its own "watchful gaze". It would thus, be consistent with N.N. Global, for this Court to itself collect the requisite stamp duty with which the agreement/ instrument is chargeable, together with ten times the amount of proper duty or deficient portion thereof, in terms of proviso (a) to Section 35.