Search Your Queries Related To Trilegal


Supreme Court on the enforceability of an unstamped or insufficiently stamped arbitration agreement

05 May 2023

Power conventional energy thumb image
The Supreme Court has expounded upon the legal validity of an unstamped or insufficiently stamped arbitration agreement at the stage of reference of disputes under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This update briefly discusses the varying judicial opinions that led to this issue being referred to a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and analyses the key points of the Supreme Court's clarificatory ruling.
Partner: Mohit Rohatgi, Associate: Samriddhi Shukla


A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, in its judgement dated 25 April 2023, in M/s N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v M/s Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors. (N.N. Global 2023), has held that an arbitration agreement in an unstamped or insufficiently stamped agreement is unenforceable and non-existent in law until such agreement is validated by paying requisite stamp duty in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Stamp Act).


The need for reference of this question to a five-judge bench arose due to a fracture of opinions in several previous decisions of the Supreme Court in relation to the implications of an unstamped or insufficiently stamped agreement including, more specifically, on the validity and existence of the arbitration agreement contained in such an agreement.

This issue first came up for consideration before a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in SMS Tea Estate v Chandmari Tea Company (2011) (SMS Tea), wherein it was held that when an unstamped or insufficiently stamped agreement is presented before the court in an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), the court must first impound the agreement and only upon the payment of requisite stamp duty, it may proceed with the appointment of an arbitral tribunal.

Thereafter, Section 11(6A) was inserted in the Arbitration Act through an amendment in 2015. Section 11(6A) sought to limit the scope of examination of a court at the pre-arbitration reference stage only to the ‘existence of an arbitration agreement’. Another two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Garware Wall Ropes v Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd. (2019) (Garware) endorsed the view taken in SMS Tea and held that the findings in SMS Tea will continue to be applicable even post-insertion of Section 11(6A) as an arbitration agreement that is not enforceable does not ‘exist’ in law.

Download PDF to read more

Subscribe to our Knowledge Repository

If you would like to receive content directly in your inbox from our knowledge repository, please complete this subscription form. This service is reserved for clients and eligible contacts.


    Under the rules of the Bar Council of India, Trilegal is prohibited from soliciting work or advertising in any form or manner. By accessing this website,, you acknowledge that:

    • You are seeking information about Trilegal of your own accord and there has been no form of solicitation, advertisement or inducement by Trilegal or its members.
    • This website should not be construed as providing legal advice for any purpose.
    • All information, content, and materials available on this website are for general informational purposes only.
    • Any information obtained or material downloaded from this website is completely at the user’s volition, and any transmission, receipt or use of this website is not intended to, and will not, create any lawyer-client relationship.
    • Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. Trilegal is not liable for the consequences of any action taken by any person based on any material or information available on this website, or for any inaccuracy in or exclusion of any information or interpretation thereof.
    • Readers of this website or recipients of content or information available on this website should not act based on any or all such content or information, and should always seek advice of competent legal counsel licensed to practice in the appropriate jurisdiction.
    • Third party links contained on this website re-directing users to such third-party websites should neither be construed as legal reference / legal advice, nor considered as referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with, any such third party website operators.
    • The communication platform provided on this website should not be used for exchange of any confidential, business or politically sensitive information.
    • The contents of this website are the intellectual property of Trilegal.

    We prioritize your privacy. Before proceeding, we encourage you to read our privacy policy, which outlines the below, and terms of use to understand how we handle your data:

    • The types of information we collect and why we collect them.
    • How we use your information to provide a personalized experience.
    • The measures we take to ensure the security of your data.
    • Your rights and choices in managing your personal information.
    • How we may share information with trusted partners for specific purpose.

    For more information, please read our terms of use and our privacy policy.

    Up arrow