Section 16 Orders Dismissing Jurisdictional Objections Based on Stamp Duty Cannot Be Challenged via Writ Jurisdiction.

The Appellant (mine owner) and Respondent (SISCO) entered into an iron ore sale agreement in 2004 and subsequent supplementary agreements

Following disputes, the matter was referred to a Sole Arbitrator. During proceedings, the Appellant filed an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), arguing the agreements were insufficiently stamped as "conveyances" under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and must be impounded

The Arbitrator rejected this, holding the agreements were "agreements to sell" and were properly stamped

The Appellant challenged this via a writ petition under Articles 226/227. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Section 16 order, and directed impounding

A Division Bench subsequently set aside the Single Judge’s order, holding the interference was in excess of jurisdiction

The Court applied Section 5 of the A&C Act, which mandates minimal judicial intervention

It relied on M/S S.B.P. and Company v. M/S Patel Engineering Ltd., which held that Section 16(6) provides the remedy against the rejection of a jurisdictional plea only at the Section 34 stage

It applied the principle from Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and the Indian Stamp Act, establishing that non-stamping is a curable defect and objections regarding stamping fall within the Arbitral Tribunal's ambit

Additionally, it followed Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, holding that if a petition is filed under both Articles 226 and 227, the court should treat it as under Article 226 to preserve the right of appeal

Regarding maintainability, the Court found that since the Appellant invoked both Articles 226 and 227 and the Single Judge issued substantive directions for impounding, the Division Bench correctly entertained the Writ Appeal

On the merits of intervention, the Court reasoned that the A&C Act is a self-contained code; Section 16(5) and (6) specifically require a party to wait until the final award to challenge a rejected jurisdictional plea under Section 34

The Court observed that the Single Judge erred by "embarking on a perusal of the true intention of the parties" and interpreting the contract’s merits—an exercise reserved for the Arbitrator

Since the Arbitrator had the inherent jurisdiction to decide the stamping issue (even if the decision was potentially erroneous), there was no "patent lack of inherent jurisdiction" to justify the "exceptional rarity" of writ interference

High Courts should not entertain writ petitions against Section 16 orders rejecting stamping objections, as such defects are curable and can be challenged post-award under Section 34

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Division Bench's judgment