<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Inadequately Stamped Documents on Vipan Kumar, PhD</title>
    <link>https://vipanphd.co.in/tags/inadequately-stamped-documents/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Inadequately Stamped Documents on Vipan Kumar, PhD</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <copyright>© 2025, Vipan Kumar</copyright>
    <atom:link href="https://vipanphd.co.in/tags/inadequately-stamped-documents/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Interplay, In Re</title>
      <link>https://vipanphd.co.in/cases-and-materials/interplay-in-re/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vipanphd.co.in/cases-and-materials/interplay-in-re/</guid>
      <description>&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, a seven judges bench of the Supreme Court has cleared a massive hurdle for commercial dispute resolution. Historically, a 2023 ruling (N.N. Global) held that an unstamped contract meant the arbitration clause within it did not exist, allowing courts to stall the appointment of an arbitrator until duties were paid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Court has now reversed this ruling that while an unstamped document is inadmissible in evidence, it is not void. Crucially, the Court held that the task of impounding a document for insufficient stamp duty lies with the Arbitral Tribunal, not the referral court.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
