Cases can be summarized as follows: in simple terms, the parties must ensure that the arbitration agreement is clear and does not leave room for inventive and ingenious interpretations. There is no doubt that your intention to settle disputes through arbitration and the manner in which such arbitration is to be conducted must be overcome. It should be remembered that the devil can be in the details and is often found. “(6A) The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court shall limit itself to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement when considering an application under Subsection (4) or Subsection (5) or Subsection (6), independently of a judgment, order or order of a court.” An arbitration agreement is entered into by two persons who enter into a contract that seeks to settle all disputes that arise between them with respect to the contractual agreement, without being judged and settled with the assistance of an arbitrator. The agreement should indicate who is to choose the arbitrator, the type of dispute the arbitrator is to take, the place of arbitration, etc. The Bombay High Court answered the first question in the affirmative and decided that waiting for a decision on stamp duty before the exemption was granted would nullify the scheme and the provisions of the 1996 Act. It was also decided that the arbitration agreement was separate from the document in which it appeared and would not require a stamp. In answering the second question, he stated that the appointment of arbitrators should not wait for the decision on stamp duty and sanction. “..
If the judicial authority considers that the arbitration agreement is prima facie, it shall refer the dispute to arbitration proceedings and definitively leave the existence of the arbitration agreement to the arbitral tribunal. . . .