https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437908 Vidya Drolia did not finally decide the effect of an unstamped or under-stamped underlying contract on an arbitration agreement. Its reference to Garware Wall Ropes was made in a different context: the meaning of the "existence" of an arbitration agreement and who decides that issue at the referral stage under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Applying the distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta, the Court reiterated that only propositions necessary to the decision bind as precedent, and that a proposition fails the inversion test if the result would remain unchanged without it. On that basis, Vidya Drolia was not a precedent on the unstamped-contract issue. en-us Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 May 2023 17:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437908 Vidya Drolia did not finally decide the effect of an unstamped or under-stamped underlying contract on an arbitration agreement. Its reference to Garware Wall Ropes was made in a different context: the meaning of the "existence" of an arbitration agreement and who decides that issue at the referral stage under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Applying the distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta, the Court reiterated that only propositions necessary to the decision bind as precedent, and that a proposition fails the inversion test if the result would remain unchanged without it. On that basis, Vidya Drolia was not a precedent on the unstamped-contract issue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437908