Tarini Prasad Mohanty Vs Sunflag Iron And Steel Company Limited (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered whether a challenge to an order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be entertained under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution while arbitration proceedings were pending, and whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
An agreement for sale of iron ore was executed on 12.02.2004 between M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty, the mine owner, and M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited (SISCO), followed by supplementary agreements. Disputes subsequently arose and were referred to a Sole Arbitrator under the arbitration clause. During the arbitration proceedings, on 05.02.2024, the mine owner raised an objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 contending that the agreement for sale and supplementary agreements were insufficiently stamped. According to the mine owner, the transaction was in the nature of a “conveyance” and therefore required stamping under Article 23 of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The mine owner contended that the agreements should be impounded and properly stamped before the arbitration could proceed.
