To be considered valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitration agreement must meet specific requirements outlined in Section 7 of the Act. These requirements include the agreement being in writing, signed by both parties, and referencing the arbitration clause in the contract. Additionally, Section 34 of the Act addresses the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in the presence of a court decree.

Recently, the Supreme Court made a decision on the validity and enforceability of an unstamped arbitration agreement, analyzing the relationship between the Stamp Act 1899, the Contract Act 1872, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The court examined the doctrines of separability and kompetenz-kompetenz in relation to these acts. The doctrine of separability asserts that an arbitration clause is separate from the main contract and remains valid even if the main contract is void or unenforceable. The doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz grants the arbitral tribunal the power to determine its own jurisdiction.

Factual Matrix Of The Case:

The respondent and the appellant entered into a subcontract that included an arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties, and the respondent attempted to invoke a bank guarantee provided by the appellant in the subcontract. In response, the appellant filed a lawsuit against the invocation of the bank guarantee.

The respondent then sought arbitration to resolve the dispute, citing Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the Commercial Court in Nagpur rejected the arbitration application.A writ petition challenging the Commercial Court's decision was filed before the Bombay High Court. The High Court overturned the Commercial Court's order. However, during the High Court proceedings, it was argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to the subcontract lacking stamping.

Consequently, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, and one of the raised issues concerned the validity and enforceability of an unstamped arbitration agreement.

Judgment:
In a 3:2 majority decision, the Supreme Court of India ruled on an arbitration agreement's validity. They held that an arbitration agreement without proper stamping and registration cannot be legally valid and enforceable. The court also asserted its responsibility to examine the contents of the agreement and impound the unstamped agreement.

Justices KM Joseph, Aniruddha Bose, and CT Ravikumar opined that an arbitration agreement lacking sufficient stamping, as defined in the Arbitration Act of 1996, cannot be applied according to the Stamp Act of 1899.

However, Justices Ajay Rastogi and Hrishikesh Roy expressed a different view. They argued that the absence of stamping on an arbitration agreement is a correctable issue and should not invalidate the agreement. They also stated that any disputes regarding stamp duty or the agreement's validity should be resolved by the arbitral tribunal as per the Arbitration Act.

The court disagreed with the previous ruling in Garware Wall Ropers Ltd v Coastal Marine Constructions, which allowed the invocation of an agreement once the stamp duty defect was rectified by depositing the deficit. The court emphasized that an agreement, including an arbitration clause, only becomes a contract enforceable by law when it is duly stamped.

The court referred to the judgment in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, which restricted instances of court intervention under Section 11. The court stated that intervention should occur only when it is abundantly clear that the arbitration agreement does not exist or is illegal. It further noted that the court should consider the appropriateness of disputes for arbitration during the reference stage.

Additionally, the court relied on the decision in SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd, which stated that an agreement subject to stamp duty or compulsory registration cannot be used as evidence or relied upon under the Stamp Act.

In summary, the majority opinion held that an unstamped and unregistered arbitration agreement is not legally valid, while the minority opinion stated that the absence of stamping is a correctable issue, and such disputes should be resolved by the arbitral tribunal.

Doctrine Of Separability

The doctrine of separability, also known as the doctrine of autonomy or separability of the arbitration agreement, is a principle in international arbitration and some national arbitration laws. It states that an arbitration agreement is considered as a separate and independent contract from the main contract in which it is contained.

According to the doctrine of separability, the validity, enforceability, and existence of the arbitration agreement are independent of the validity or enforceability of the underlying main contract. This means that even if the main contract is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the arbitration agreement may still be valid and enforceable.

The doctrine of separability upholds the principle of party autonomy in arbitration. It enables parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration, regardless of any issues or challenges with the underlying contract. This ensures that the arbitration agreement remains valid and can be given effect, even if the main contract is flawed.

The doctrine of separability is widely recognized and applied in international arbitration practice and many national arbitration laws. It provides stability and certainty to arbitration proceedings, allowing parties to rely on the arbitration agreement as a distinct and independent legal instrument.In the case of SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Limited, the Supreme Court of India examined the issue of stamp duty on an arbitration clause in an unstamped contract. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement would not be enforceable until the contract was impounded, and the required stamp duty and penalty were paid.

In the case of Garware Wall Ropers Ltd v Coastal Marine Constructions, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of paying the stamp duty and penalties. However, in the NN Global case, the court ruled that arbitration proceedings should not be delayed until the stamp duty is paid.

In simpler terms, the doctrine of separability suggests that an arbitration agreement stands on its own and remains valid even if the main contract is terminated. However, Indian courts have expressed different opinions regarding the requirement of paying stamp duty on arbitration agreements. Some cases state that the agreement is unenforceable until the stamp duty is paid, while others allow arbitration proceedings to proceed without delay, even if the stamp duty is unpaid.

Principle Of Kompetenz-Kompetenz

The principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz refers to the authority of the arbitral tribunal to decide on its own jurisdiction. In the context of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, this principle extends to the power of a judicial body to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11.

The argument presented in this case relates to the concept of Kompetenz-Kompetenz. It asserts that under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitral tribunal has the power to determine its own jurisdiction and assess the validity of an arbitration agreement. This minimizes court intervention in arbitral proceedings and ensures the efficient functioning of the arbitration process.

In simpler terms, the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz allows the arbitral tribunal to decide on its own authority and determine if it has jurisdiction over a dispute. This principle is enshrined in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which grants the tribunal the power to assess the validity of the arbitration agreement. It helps reduce court interference in arbitration and promotes the efficient operation of the arbitration process.

Conclusion
The recent court decision overturned the previous ruling in the N.N. Global case and upheld the positions taken in the SMS Tea Estates and Garware cases. It determined that a document with an arbitration clause that is not stamped will not be considered a legally enforceable contract under the Contract Act. This decision weakens the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle and may impact India's reputation as a preferred arbitration seat for Indian and international parties.

The requirement to resolve stamp duty issues in court before arbitration can commence will likely increase time and costs for the parties involved. This ruling could also contribute to the existing judicial delays and backlog of commercial cases in the country.