An insufficiently stamped document cannot be ordered to impound by the Courts or Tribunals unless they are produced before them: Supreme Court

CASE: Widescreen Holdings Private Limited vs Religare Finvest Limited 

COURT: Justice MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

MAHARASHTRA STAMP ACT, 1958: Stamp duties applicable on legal documents in the state of Maharashtra. 

In the above-mentioned case, the Supreme Court of India observed that documents that are inadequately stamped cannot be ordered to be impounded by a Court or Tribunal if they are not produced before them on record. 

In this case, a loan agreement that had an arbitration clause in it was produced before the Arbitral Tribunal during the arbitral proceedings. The agreement was insufficiently stamped, so the Tribunal directed the original loan agreement to be taken to the Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra, in order to determine its original stamp duty before it could be presented in the arbitral proceedings. The Tribunal did not dismiss the case but merely adjourned the proceedings till the documents were adequately stamped. 

This order was challenged in the Delhi High Court, which held that an arbitrator cannot order the impounding of documents as the original loan agreement was never produced in front of it. Further, a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution was filed in the Supreme Court of India, contending that the original applicant is not producing the original loan agreement, which had an arbitration clause before the court. The Supreme Court of India observed that a document which is not produced before a Tribunal or Court cannot be ordered to be impounded unless produced on records.