Arbitration agreement enforceability: unstamped contracts do not block appointment of an arbitrator at the referral stage.

At the referral stage, the Court confined its inquiry to the existence of an arbitration agreement and held that objections based on unstamped underlying contracts did not bar appointment of an arbitrator. Applying separability and the arbitral tribunal's competence to rule on its own jurisdiction, it treated the pending stamp duty issue before the Collector as not determinative at this stage. The Court followed the settled position that non-payment or insufficiency of stamp duty does not, by itself, render an arbitration agreement unenforceable for pre-appointment purposes. The petitions were therefore entertained and a sole arbitrator was appointed for the consolidated disputes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitration petitions seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator could be entertained despite the objection that the underlying agreements were unstamped and the stamp duty issue was pending before the Collector.

Analysis: The arbitration agreements were not disputed, and the Court applied the principle that, at the referral stage, the examination is confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Court also relied on the doctrine of separability and the competence of the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. In view of the settled position that non-payment or insufficiency of stamp duty does not by itself render the arbitration agreement unenforceable at the pre-appointment stage, and considering the time-sensitive nature of arbitration matters, the pending stamp duty issue was not treated as a bar to appointment of an arbitrator.

Conclusion: The objection based on unstamped agreements was rejected, and the petitions were entertained with appointment of a sole arbitrator for the consolidated disputes.

---