An agreement between two parties (one from India and one from Japan) is notarised in India. As per the terms of the agreement the arbitration (if the need arise in future) venue would be Japan.

1- What is the validity of such an agreement which is stamped by a notary in India (but the arbitration venue will be Japan)?

2- Is there any need to get it notarised in Japan also?

1 Answer 1


The agreement doesn't have to be notarized under either the law of India or the law of Japan (unless there are some highly unusual facts in this case not mentioned in the question). In this situation, the notarization merely provides one additional means to prove that the agreement was actually signed by the parties whose signatures appear on the agreement, rather than being forged.

It is not possible to determine, without knowing more about the agreement, whether the arbitration agreement would be valid. The validity of the arbitration agreement would probably be determined under the law of Japan since that is the specified venue, unless the agreement provided otherwise.

Japan allows disputes over some agreements to be resolved by arbitration, but not every possible kind of dispute. For example, Japan prohibits arbitration in domestic relations and adoption cases. India likewise has certain kinds of disputes for which arbitration is prohibited (for example, rent control). A subject matter that cannot legally be arbitrated in India might also render the arbitration agreement void despite a Japanese forum.

Both India and Japan do, however, permit arbitration of international "commercial" disputes, which normally would involve business to business contracts.

  • Thanks for your valuable comments. And also for editing my question. :-)
    – gpuguy
    Sep 7, 2017 at 3:04
  • But I do not understand if the agreement is not notarized, how it will be valid in the international court of justice ?
    – gpuguy
    Sep 7, 2017 at 3:07
  • 1
    @gpuguy The international court of justice has nothing to do with anything and would never be involved. If someone refused to arbitrate, a domestic court in Japan would be involved, not an international one. The International Court of Justice handles mostly disputes between two different countries such as boundary disputes. In general, agreements signed by both parties concerning arbitration are valid under both the law of India and the law of Japan, and do not have to be notarized. Why would you think that notarization was required or that the international court of justice would be involved?
    – ohwilleke
    Sep 7, 2017 at 3:14
  • Ok. Got it. But is there any harm of getting the agreement notarized?
    – gpuguy
    Sep 7, 2017 at 3:19
  • 1
    @gpuguy No. Getting it notarized is one way to prove that it was actually signed by the people whom it purports to be signed by. If it is notarized, the third-party notary as well as one of the parties has to be engaged in blatant fraud, and it is likely that an arbitrator or court would not believe that this happened.
    – ohwilleke
    Sep 7, 2017 at 3:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .