1. The plaintiff filed this suit for declaration and injunction making a prayer that this Court should declare the alleged agreement to sell dated 18th July, 2006, which contains an arbitration clause, as null and void being forged and fabricated. The other prayer made is that the Arbitrator appointed by the defendants be restrained from proceeding with the arbitration matter in pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the alleged agreement to sell.

2. After receiving a notice of this suit, defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act with a prayer that the suit for declaration would not lie in view of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the parties should be referred to the Arbitrator who was already ceased with the matter. The arbitration clause was invoked by the defendant by serving a notice of reference dated 19th October, 2008 under Section 21 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with Clause 35 of the agreement thereby appointing Justice (retired) Dr. A.R. Laxman as the sole Arbitrator.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide the issue whether the arbitration agreement relied upon by the defendant before the Arbitrator was a forged document or not. Counsel drew the attention of the Court that the alleged signatures of petitioner, Ajay Gupta on the agreement to sell, which contains arbitration clause do not tally with the signatures of Mr. Ajay Gupta as appearing on the undisputed documents executed by him prior to the alleged agreement. These documents were placed on record and attention of this Court was drawn to the signatures appearing on these documents and the agreement to sell in question. It was further submitted that in the alleged agreement to sell no details of payment of Rs.94 lakhs allegedly paid have been given as no such payment was made. In fact the parties were having business transactions prior to the date of alleged agreement and the plaintiff had taken unsecured loan from the defendant on various dates. Part of this loan had been paid back and part of this loan was outstanding. This amount of Rs.94 lakhs though at one time was the outstanding unsecured loan but it was never a consideration received against agreement to sell. Counsel for the plaintiff took me through different loan transactions.

4. Another submission made by the plaintiffs counsel is that in application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act made by the defendant, it was mentioned: 9. That pursuant to such agreement an oral agreement to sell was reached between the parties where under Petitioner made payments of a sum of Rs.94,00,000/- (Ninety Four lacs Only) by way of various cheques. 10. That thereafter a Written Agreement to Sell was entered into between the parties where under the receipt of consideration of a sum of Rs.94,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Four lacs only) was admitted by the Respondents, it was also agreed that the total consideration for the sale of the aforesaid premises shall be Rs.4 crores only and on receipt of the balance consideration amount of Rs.3 crores 6 lacs the respondent company will execute the requisite conveyance deeds.

5. It is submitted that the allegation made in Section 9 application, of payment of Rs.94 lakhs as consideration for the agreement by various cheques was a white lie since no details of the cheques have been mentioned, either in Section 9 application or in the alleged agreement to sell. On the other hand, plaintiff has placed on record the details of unsecured loan procured by it from the defendant which amounted to Rs.94 lakhs and also placed on record the transactions showing that part of this was paid back.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Mr. Naresh Chopra, one of the Directors of defendant no. 1 and brother of defendants no. 2 and 3 was taken as an additional Director by the plaintiff in its company and Mr.