The Indian Supreme Court, in the same decision, which overturned a decision of the Bombay Supreme Court, Coastal Marine Constructions – Engineering Ltd. against Garware Walls Ropes Ltd., ruled that a compromise clause in an agreement that is not stamped by law could not take effect if and until the agreement is duly stamped. What happens if you have an unsealed arbitration agreement The Supreme Court has been asked to interpret Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act on various occasions. Two important decisions are being made in this regard: SBP – Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., (2005) 8 CSC 618 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd., (2009) 1 CSC 267. These decisions led to a situation that led the courts to consider a number of preliminary issues relating to the dispute between the parties, while considering an application for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve those same disputes. This resulted in a delay in the appointment of arbitrators and, as a result, a delay in the start and conclusion of the arbitration. On 04 April 2019, in the case of Gautam Landscapes Private Ltd.
and Ors v. Shailesh S. Shah et Ors, the Bombay High Court had to rule on two issues: (i) whether a document subject to a compromise clause is not stamped or sufficiently stamped; and (ii) in light of Section 11 (6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inserted by arbitration and conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2016, it would be necessary for the Court of Justice to pre-examine and final decisions on an application under Section 11, paragraph 6, of the Act, to be taken to await the decision of the Stampid authorities, in a case where the document is not sufficiently marked. The report, which was commissioned to address delays in the arbitration process, acknowledged that delays in the arbitration process had contributed to the inefficiency of the process. The report recommended that judicial review be limited to the existence of an arbitration decision and that all other previous issues be left to the arbitral tribunal. The Court relied on the Garmare case and reiterated that the agreement should be stamped in the state where the arbitration agreement takes place, if it is not concluded, it will lead to the clause being removed from the rest of the agreement. That would be irrational, given that the compromise clause is an integral part of the agreement. In addition, the Tribunal rejected Satyanarayana`s argument that «a case that must be made or accomplished» should include only contractual obligations on the part of the contractor. First, with regard to the Stamps Act, it was decided that the absence of non-cachet could be cured at any stage of the procedure and, therefore, that it could be insured at a later date. For example, z.B. an interim action is granted and the matter is referred to the arbitrator, the arbitrator may object to the non-stamp and send the parties to the seizure at that time, if necessary.  Second, with respect to the right of arbitration, it was decided that the right to a Section 9 injunction would not be conferred by the contract, but a statutory right to protect the rights and purpose of the decision.
Thirdly, with regard to the fair rights of the applicants, it was decided that the question of stamping could be put before the tax authorities. In such a situation, the granting of interim facilities until the decision on the issues of stamps can be too drastic and cause serious difficulties for the parties. In fact, after Garware, there were also decisions that, on the basis of the parties` justice, agreed to seek arbitration agreement for the granting of interim measures and the renewal of the warrant of the arbitral tribunal.  In 20153, the Indian government introduced an amendment to the law that introduced S.11 (6A) to get out of the sms tea case (supra) cited above, a judgment of the Supreme Court of India, limiting the powers of the courts under S.11 to the consideration of the existence of an arbitration agreement.