REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL …

1 REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 3631 OF 2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition ( CIVIL ) No. 9213 of 2018)GARWARE WALL ROPES LTD.. APPELLANTVERSUSCOASTAL MARINE CONSTRUCTIONS & ENGINEERING LTD.. NARIMAN, J. appeal arises out of a sub-contract given by the appellant tothe respondent in respect of work to be done for installation of a geo-textile tubes embankment with toe mound at village Pentha in Odishafor protection against coastal erosion. The sub-contract agreement isdated , Annexure III of which contains the followingarbitration clause: Any and all claims, disputes , questions or controversiesinvolving the parties and arising in connection with theAgreement or execution, interpretation, validity,performance, termination hereof which cannot be finally1resolved by such parties [sic through] negotiation shallbe resolved by final and binding arbitration held in disputes shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to beappointed by GWRL and COMACOE jointly inagreement.

2 Arose between the parties, and on , theappellant terminated the sub-contract. As a result, on , therespondent wrote to the appellant stating that as disputes anddifferences had arisen between the parties, notice was given ofappointment of Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, Advocate, as sole appellant replied on , stating that the appointment ofMr. Naniwadekar as sole arbitrator was not acceptable as invocation ofarbitration in pursuance of the agreement is premature. Therespondent, therefore, filed a petition under Section 11 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [ 1996 Act ] on the Bombay High COURT .

3 By the impugned judgment , the Section 11 petition was allowed and Mr. Naniwadekarwas appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes anddifferences which have arisen between the appellant and therespondent in relation to the sub-contract dated question raised in this appeal is as to what is the effect of anarbitration clause contained in a contract which requires to bestamped. This COURT , in SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea2Co. (P) Ltd., (2011) 14 SCC 66 [ SMS Tea Estates ], has held thatwhere an arbitration clause is contained in an unstamped agreement,the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [ Indian Stamp Act ]require the Judge hearing the Section 11 application to impound theagreement and ensure that stamp duty and penalty (if any) are paidthereon before proceeding with the Section 11 application.

4 Thequestion is whether Section 11(6A), which has been introduced by wayof the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015[ Amendment Act, 2015 ], has removed the basis of this judgment, sothat the stage at which the instrument is to be impounded is not by theJudge hearing the Section 11 application, but by an arbitrator who isappointed under Section 11, as has been held by the Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the appellant, has taken us through the sub-contract as well as thearbitration clause contained therein. He relied strongly upon theMaharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 [ Maharashtra Stamp Act ], andSections 33 and 34 thereof, in particular.

5 According to him, these areprovisions which are similar to the provisions contained in Sections 33and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, which, as held in SMS Tea Estates(supra), requires judicial authorities to impound such instruments,3which cannot be admitted in evidence or cannot be acted upon untilduly stamped. According to him, the judgment in SMS Tea Estates(supra) continues to apply even after the introduction of Section 11(6A)to the 1996 Act, by which the COURT is now to confine itself to theexamination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Relying uponthe 246th Law Commission Report, which led to the amendmentcontained in Section 11(6A), together with the Statement of Objectsand Reasons appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation(Amendment) Bill, 2015, Mr.

6 Mehta argued that it was clear that theamendment was necessitated as a result of two SUPREME Courtjudgments in particular, namely, SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd.,(2005) 8 SCC 618 [ SBP & Co. ] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Polyfab (P) Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 267 [ Boghara Polyfab ], bywhich the door was opened too wide, so that many preliminary issueswhich do not relate to the existence of an arbitration agreement wereto be decided by the COURT hearing the Section 11 application insteadof by the arbitrator. The focus being on these two judgments, it is clearthat it is these two judgments whose basis has been removed, leavingSMS Tea Estates (supra) untouched.

7 According to him, it is clear thatif, as a result of operation of law, an instrument is to be impounded,upon which stamp duty and penalty (if any) are then to be paid, must4be followed as Section 11(6A) does not seek to interfere with theIndian Stamp Act at all. He relied upon certain judgments to buttresshis submissions. Ridhi Nyati, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of therespondent, referred us to Sections 8, 16, and 45 of the 1996 Act inparticular, and made it clear that the object of the Amendment Act,2015, in introducing Section 11(6A), was to confine the COURT hearingthe Section 11 application to examination of the existence of anarbitration agreement and nothing more.

8 She made a distinctionbetween validity and existence of an arbitration agreement, andargued that the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act are a fiscal measureintended merely to collect revenue and, if at all, will go to validity ofan arbitration agreement and not to its existence . She relied stronglyupon certain judgments which made it clear that an arbitrationagreement is independent of the agreement in which it is contained. Solong as it is in writing, and therefore, exists in fact, the COURT hearingthe Section 11 application is to appoint an arbitrator and thereafterleave all other preliminary issues to the arbitrator, as is mandated bySection 11 of the 1996 Act.

9 The whole object of the amendment wouldbe defeated as otherwise, a mini-trial would be conducted at theSection 11 stage, requiring impounding of the agreement containing5the arbitration clause. She also relied upon Section 11(13) of the 1996 Act, making it clear that the application under Section 11 ought to bedisposed of within a period of 60 days from the date of service ofnotice, and that this would not be possible if questions relating to theIndian Stamp Act were to be decided at the Section 11 stage. Equally,according to her, no prejudice would be caused to any party if thearbitrator were to commence the arbitration and then impound thedocuments containing the arbitration clause by applying the IndianStamp Act.

10 She also argued that, in the present case, it is the appellantwho is to pay stamp duty under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, andtherefore, cannot take advantage of its own wrong in not doing so, ashas been correctly held in the impugned judgment. She also reliedupon several other judgments to buttress her heard learned counsel for both sides, it is important tofirst set out the relevant provisions contained in the 1996 Act. Section2(1)(b) defines arbitration agreement as follows: 2. Definitions. (1) In this Part, unless the contextotherwise requires, xxx xxx xxx(b) arbitration agreement means an agreementreferred to in Section 7;xxx xxx xxx 6 Section 7 is important and deals with what is meant by an arbitrationagreement.