Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in M/s.N.N.Global Mercantile Private Limited v. M/s.Indo Unique Flame Limited and others 1 while dealing with the aspect of stamp duty on agreement, referred a decision in 1 Civil Appeal No(s).3802-3803 of 2020 decided on 25.04.2023 N.N.Global Mercantile Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Limited and others 2 wherein it was held that:

"The Bench in N.N.Global (supra) went on to hold as follows:

"26. In our view, there is no legal impediment to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, pending payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract. The adjudication of the rights and obligations under the work order or the substantive commercial contract would, however, not proceed before complying with the mandatory provisions of the Stamp Act.

27. The Stamp Act is a fiscal enactment for payment of stamp duty to the State on certain classes of instruments specified in the Stamp Act. Section 40 of the Stamp Act, 1899 provides the procedure for instruments which have been impounded, and sub-section (1) of Section 42 requires the instrument to be endorsed after it is duly stamped by the Collector concerned. Section 42(2) provides that after the document is duly stamped, it shall be admissible in evidence, and may be acted upon.

2 (2021) 4 SCC 379

29. We hold that since the arbitration agreement is an independent agreement between the parties, and is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, the non-payment of stamp duty on the commercial contract, would not invalidate the arbitration clause, or render it unenforceable, since it has an independent existence of its own. The view taken by the Court on the issue of separability of the arbitration clause on the registration of the substantive contract, ought to have been followed even with respect to the Stamp Act. The non-payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract would not invalidate even the main contract. It is a deficiency which is curable on the payment of the requisite stamp duty."

12. In the case on hand, the plea of non-payment of stamp duty was not taken at threshold before the learned Arbitrator and the said plea was introduced before the learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. However, in view of the above settled position of law, the non-payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract would not invalidate even the main contract.

13. The Honourable Apex Court in M. Anasuya Devi v. M Manik Reddy 3 held that:

"After we heard the matter, we are of the view that in the present case this issue was not required to be gone into at the stage of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. In fact, this issue was pre-mature at that stage. Section 34 of the Act provides for setting aside of the Award on the ground enumerated therein. It is not dispute that an application for setting aside the Award would not lie on any other ground, which is not enumerated in Section 34 of the Act. The question as to whether the Award is required to be stamped and registered, would be relevant only when the parties would file the Award for its enforcement under Section 36 of the Act. It is at this stage the parties can raise objections regarding its admissibility on account of non- registration and non-stamping under Section 17 of the Registration Act. In that view of the matter the exercise undertaken to decide the said issue by the Civil Court as also by the High Court was 2003 (9) SCALE 12 entirely an exercise in futility. The question whether an Award requires stamping and registration is within the ambit of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not covered by Section 34 of the Act."