Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 116

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Rajia Begum – Appellant
Versus
Barnali Mukherjee – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 674 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) NO. 6013 of 2021)
With
Barnali Mukherjee – Appellant
Versus
Rajia Begum And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 675 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 20262 of 2021)
Decided On : 02-02-2026

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.

IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment of Arbitrator – When existence of arbitration agreement itself is in serious dispute and requires adjudication, appointment of Arbitrator would be premature and legally impermissible.

Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Appointment of Arbitrator – When allegation of fraud is made with regard to arbitration agreement itself, such a dispute is generally recognised as a dispute, which is in realm of non- arbitrability and court will examine it, as a jurisdictional issue only to enquire whether dispute has become non-arbitrable due to one or other reason – There exists substantial and cogent material which casts serious doubt on genuineness of Admission Deed – Arbitration clause does not exist independently but is embedded in the document whose existence is seriously disputed – Arbitration is founded upon consent – A party may be bound by arbitral process only if it is first shown, even at a prima facie level, that such a party had agreed to submit disputes to arbitration – Where arbitration agreement itself is alleged to be forged or fabricated, disputes ceases to be merely contractual and strikes very root of arbitral jurisdiction – When existence of arbitration agreement itself is in serious dispute and requires adjudication, appointment of Arbitrator would be premature and legally impermissible – Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution is not an appellate jurisdiction in disguise, and it does not permit reappreciation of evidence – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution, was not justified in dislodging concurrent findings and directing reference of dispute to arbitration, particularly when very existence of arbitration agreement was under serious doubt. (Paras 15, 16, 20, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
A common issue namely, whether the disputes can be referred to arbitration or an Arbitrator can be appointed when the very existence of arbitration agreement itself is seriously disputed on the allegations of forgery and fabrication, arises for consideration in these appeals.
Findings of Court:
Both Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had concurrently held that allegations of fraud in present case were serious and that respondent no.1 had failed to produce original Admission Deed or a certified copy thereof, as required under Section 8(2) of Act. Aforesaid findings were not perfunctory, but were grounded in the material on record and in the statutory requirements.
Result : Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 6013 of 2021 dismissed and Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 20262 of 2021 allowed.

Judgement Key Points

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.

JUDGMENT

ALOK ARADHE, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise from a partnership dispute in which appellant claims entry into the firm by virtue of a document whose execution is stoutly denied and is alleged to be forged. The High Court on the same factual foundation involving the same alleged arbitration agreement, has in one proceeding directed the parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration and whereas in another proceeding, declined to appoint an arbitrator on the ground, that the existence of an arbitration agreement is itself in serious doubt. A common issue namely, whether the disputes can be referred to arbitration or an arbitrator can be appointed when the very existence of arbitration agreement itself is seriously disputed on the allegations of forgery and fabrication, arises for consideration in these appeals.

(i) NARRATION OF FACTS

3. The appellant, Barnali Mukherjee, in the appeal @ SLP (C) No. 20262 of 2021 (appellant), Aftabuddin (respondent no.2) and Raihan Ikbal (respondent no.3), constituted a partnership firm styled as ‘M/s RDDHI Gold’ (firm) by virtue of partnership deed dated 01.12.2005. Rajia Begum (respondent no.1) claims that the respondent nos.2 and 3 executed a power of attorney on 17.04.2007 empowering her to manage the affairs of the firm on their behalf pursuant to which she executed a deed of admission and retirement (Admission Deed) by which respondent nos.2 and 3 retired from the firm.

4. The appellant contends that the business of the reconstituted partnership firm was absorbed and taken over by a company named ‘RDDHI Gold Pvt. Ltd.’ (company) pursuant to the absorption deed dated 27.02.2011. On 02.10.2016, the respondent no.1 issued a notice to the appellant asserting that, on the basis of the aforesaid Admission Deed dated 17.04.2007, she had acquired an interest to the extent of 50.33% in the erstwhile partnership firm and that respondent nos.2 and 3 had retired as partners in 2007 itself. The appellant by reply dated 21.11.2016, categorically denied the execution of the Admission Deed by her or by the other respondents and further denied the very induction of the respondent no.1 in the firm as a partner at any point in time. Thus, the appellant took a stand that the Admission Deed is a forged and fabricated document, concocted by the respondent no.1.

(ii) APLICATION UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ACT

5. The respondent no.1 applied to the Trial Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), for preservation of the subject matter of dispute and for appointment of receiver for the Company which came to be allowed by the Trial Court. The High Court, by an order dated 04.05.2018, allowed the appeal filed by the appellant inter alia finding that the very existence/execution of the ‘Admission Deed’ is in dispute and, in view of the availability of cogent material which would indicate the non-existence of the Admission Deed, it would not be prudent on the part of the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act, to accord interim protection to the respondent no.1 who has failed to demonstrate the existence of an arbitration agreement in a prima facie manner. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 04.05.2018, the respondent no.1 preferred an Appeal to this Court which came to be dismissed. Thus, the said order of the High Court dated 04.05.2018, rejecting the application of the respondent no.1 under Section 9 of the Act, attained finality between the parties.

(iii) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE ACT

6. The appellant, on 16.05.2018, filed a civil suit bearing No.71/2018 before the competent civil court seeking the relief of declaration and injunction against the respondent no.1 inter alia seeking a declaration that the ‘Admission Deed’ is a forged document. The respondent no.1, in the said suit, preferred an application to the Trial Court under Section 8 of the Act, to refer the suit to arbitration, owing to the existence of an arbitration agreemen