Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aakash Sirohi, AOR Mr. Indra Lal, Adv. Mr. Subhojit Seal, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Ms. Manishita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Vikas Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Rajput, Adv. Mr. Vikas Rai, Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Subhojit Seal, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Ms. Manishita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Vikas Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Rajput, Adv. Mr. Vikas Rai, Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR Mr. Aakash Sirohi, AOR Mr. Indra Lal, Adv.

The legal document addresses a significant issue regarding the arbitrability of disputes where the very existence of an arbitration agreement is in serious doubt due to allegations of forgery and fabrication. The core principle established is that when there are substantial and cogent reasons to doubt the genuineness of an arbitration agreement, particularly when the agreement is alleged to be forged or fabricated, the dispute cannot be referred to arbitration at that stage. Instead, such disputes are considered non-arbitrable and require thorough adjudication in a court of law to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement itself (!) (!) (!) .

The document emphasizes that arbitration is fundamentally based on mutual consent. Therefore, if the arbitration agreement is alleged to be forged, fabricated, or non-existent, the dispute fundamentally challenges the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. In such cases, the court's role is to examine whether the arbitration agreement is genuine and valid before proceeding with arbitration. If the agreement's existence is seriously disputed, the court must treat this as a jurisdictional issue, rather than a matter suitable for arbitration (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the document highlights that allegations of fraud that go to the root of the arbitration clause or the entire contract—especially when such allegations are serious, complex, or involve criminal conduct—are generally regarded as non-arbitrable. The court must then decide whether the dispute pertains to the validity of the agreement itself or merely to contractual differences that can be arbitrated (!) (!) (!) .

In this case, the court found that there was substantial and convincing material casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the arbitration agreement, specifically the Admission Deed relied upon by the respondent. The circumstances, such as inconsistencies in the document's timeline, absence from contemporaneous records, and conflicting admissions, led to the conclusion that the agreement's validity was in serious doubt. As a result, the court determined that the dispute involving the validity of the arbitration agreement could not be referred to arbitration at this stage (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Additionally, the document clarifies that findings made in earlier proceedings, especially those that are final or have attained finality, are relevant and must be considered in subsequent related proceedings. The court underscored that the supervisory jurisdiction under the constitutional framework is not an appellate jurisdiction and does not permit re-evaluation of evidence, particularly when the existence of an arbitration agreement is under serious doubt (!) .

In conclusion, when an arbitration agreement is alleged to be forged or fabricated, and there are serious doubts about its authenticity, the dispute is non-arbitrable. The court must first resolve the issue of the agreement's validity through a thorough judicial process before any arbitration can be considered. If such doubts are established, the court is justified in declining to appoint an arbitrator and in refusing to refer the dispute to arbitration until the matter is conclusively determined.