Leaving a conflict unresolved is like leaving a story unfinished. PrivateCourt writes the ending, transforming disputes into tales of RESOLUTION!

Private Court Symbol
The International Court of ARBITRATION


Got any

Write to us


Share this page

Supreme Court Delves Deeper: Unstamped Arbitration Clauses Face Judicial Scrutiny in 'NN Global' Case Referred to Seven-Judge Bench

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has referred a crucial question to a seven-judge bench regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements that are either unstamped or insufficiently stamped. The decision to refer this matter was made during the hearing of a curative petition challenging a 2020 ruling, which held that arbitration clauses in agreements lacking proper stamping cannot be enforced by the court.

The 5-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, acknowledged the importance and widespread implications of this issue in the realm of arbitration law. The bench expressed concerns about the uncertainty caused by the previous ruling and emphasized the need for a comprehensive reevaluation by a larger bench.

Delving Into the Legal Landscape

The genesis of this issue can be traced back to the case of M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors, which came up for consideration during the hearing of the curative petition. In this case, a bench comprising five justices provided differing opinions on the enforceability of unstamped instruments, ultimately resulting in a 3:2 majority decision against their enforceability.

The legal landscape surrounding this issue is intricate and crucial. The concept of stamping legal documents dates back to the colonial era, rooted in the Indian Stamp Act of 1899. Stamping of agreements was deemed necessary to provide legal authenticity and to accrue revenue for the government. However, the modern legal interpretation has evolved to grapple with the enforceability of unstamped or insufficiently stamped agreements.

Duel of Legal Opinions

During the recent proceedings, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioner challenging the 2020 ruling, argued that courts should not question the validity of arbitration agreements. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the respondent, emphasized that the case involved an agreement dating back to 1997, and the matter had already been resolved, urging the bench not to reopen the factual and legal aspects.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud assured that the bench would address the issue of maintainability at a later stage before the seven-judge bench. He emphasized the importance of adjudicating the correctness of the judgement in NN Global, reaffirming the significance of this matter.

Legal Precedents and Constitutional Implications

The Supreme Court's deliberations hold immense constitutional and legal significance. The doctrine of stare decisis dictates that the court should follow legal precedents, ensuring consistency and predictability in the law. However, the dynamic nature of legal interpretation calls for reevaluations of past decisions to align with contemporary legal thought and societal needs.

The recent referral to a seven-judge bench echoes the court's commitment to thorough examination and the evolving interpretation of legal doctrines. The court must balance legal precedents with the need for adaptability to ensure justice and fairness in contemporary society.

Awaiting the Verdict: Implications and Expectations

The Supreme Court also recently constituted a seven-judge bench to review the judgement in PV Narasimha Rao v State (1998), addressing the immunity enjoyed by legislators in bribery cases related to parliamentary votes and speeches. This move underlines the court's commitment to thoroughly examining critical legal issues that have far-reaching implications.

To provide some background, the Supreme Court, in its February 2020 judgement in Bhaskar Raju and Brothers and Anr V. s Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram & Other Charities and Ors, had ruled that arbitration clauses in agreements must be duly stamped to be enforceable. The case originated from a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, where the dispute arose due to insufficient stamping on the lease deed.

This ruling was challenged in a curative petition, prompting the recent referral to a seven-judge bench for a comprehensive reevaluation of the issue. The Supreme Court is set to hear this critical matter on October 11, 2023, and all concerned parties have been directed to submit their compilations by October 6, 2023.

The Path Forward: An In-depth Analysis

The Supreme Court's decision to refer the NN Global case to a seven-judge bench signifies a pivotal moment in arbitration law. The court's forthcoming deliberations and eventual ruling are eagerly awaited, as they are expected to provide much-needed clarity and guidance on the enforceability of unstamped or insufficiently stamped arbitration agreements, addressing the persistent legal uncertainties in this domain. Stay tuned for further updates on this significant legal development.

As the legal community anticipates the verdict, it remains a matter of intense debate and speculation. The implications of this decision will resonate through the legal landscape, potentially influencing contract drafting, arbitration procedures, and legal enforcement. Legal experts and practitioners are closely monitoring this case, poised to adapt their practices based on the court's final judgment.

The decision of the seven-judge bench will not only impact ongoing cases but will also set a precedent for future arbitration agreements. It is a critical juncture that holds the potential to shape the future of arbitration law in India. All eyes are on the Supreme Court as the legal fraternity eagerly awaits the landmark ruling.

Case Title: Bhaskar Raju and Brothers and Anr V. s Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram & Other Charities and Ors, Curative Petition (Civil) No 44 of 2023 in Review Petition (Civil) No 704 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No 1599 of 2020.