Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.39 seconds)Section 35 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 36 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 61 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Shyamal Kumar Roy vs Sushil Kumar Agarwal on 31 October, 2006
17. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vociferously
challenges the legality of the impugned award. According to Mr.
Mishra, Shyamal Kumar Roy1 was not applicable to the facts of this
case as, in that case, the objection of insufficient stamping of the
document in question was taken at the stage of final arguments after
evidence had been completed and the document had, in fact, been
admitted in evidence. He submits that, in the present case, the learned
Arbitral Tribunal erred in treating the copy of the Agreement to Sell
dated 4th April, 2011 as having admitted in evidence, whereas, in fact,
it had yet to be admitted in evidence. He submits that admission in
evidence is an exercise to be undertaken by the judicial/ arbitral forum
dealing with the dispute, and cannot be stated to be completed merely
because one or the other party may admit the document at the stage of
admission and denial. After admission of the document at the stage of
admission and denial, submits Mr. Mishra, the document has to be
formally introduced in evidence by exhibiting of the document. It is
only thereafter that the document can be stated to have been admitted
in evidence. This exercise not having taken place in the present case,
he submits that the learned Arbitral Tribunal fell seriously in error in
refusing to adjudicate on the petitioner's objection regarding
insufficient stamping of the Agreement to Sell dated 4th April, 2011,
1 (2006) 11 SCC 331
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
O.M.P. (COMM) 359/2021 Page 11 of 17
Signing Date:14.12.2021
15:12:50
on the ground that the objection had not been taken at the appropriate
stage. Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, he submits that, has no
applicability to the present case, and, therefore, Section 35 would
apply, rendering the copy of the Agreement to Sell dated 4th April,
2011, inadmissible in evidence.