Commercial contracts often contain arbitration clauses but may be insufficiently stamped under fiscal law. Parties resisting arbitration argued that an unstamped main contract was legally inadmissible and therefore its arbitration clause could not be enforced. That approach allowed stamp objections to delay appointment of arbitrators before the merits were ever heard. The reference required the Court to reconcile revenue collection under stamp law with the Arbitration Act's separability principle and policy of minimal judicial interference.

Parties supporting reference to arbitration argued that stamping is a curable fiscal defect and the arbitration clause is legally separate from the underlying contract. Opponents relied on the Stamp Act's bar on admitting unstamped instruments and contended that courts cannot act on such a document until duty and penalty are paid.

An unstamped or inadequately stamped agreement is inadmissible in evidence until cured, but it is not void or non-existent. The objection concerns admissibility, not the existence of consent to arbitrate. At the referral stage courts should conduct only a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement; stamping objections can be addressed by the arbitral tribunal in accordance with law. N.N. Global's contrary majority view was overruled.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ss.5, 7, 8, 11 and 16; Indian Stamp Act, 1899, ss.33 and 35; Indian Contract Act, 1872

Constitution arts.141 and 142

Separability; kompetenz-kompetenz; curable inadmissibility; minimal judicial intervention; harmonious construction