Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Satish Kumar Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
Megha Singh - Respondent
ARB. P. 34 of 2013 & 3019 of 2014
Decided On : 25-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hitendra Kumar Nahata, Ms. Ritu Jain
For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Mund, Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Ms. Pooja Yadav
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement is a condition precedent before an arbitrator can be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court also emphasized that every vexatious allegation of forgery need not require a trial and that the determination of whether there is forgery or not may not require a full-fledged trial in every case.
Headnote:
Arbitration Agreement - Dispute over Existence - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 8, Section 11 - The court found that there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties based on the CFSL report and the suit filed by the respondent. The court held that the signatures of the respondent in the arbitration agreement are valid and genuine, and referred the disputes to the sole arbitrator. The court also dismissed the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and disposed of related applications and the main petition accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reference to arbitration of disputes with the respondent regarding an agreement. The respondent alleged that the agreement was never executed and filed a suit seeking various reliefs, including damages. The court examined the genuinity and authenticity of the signatures of the respondent and referred the disputes to the sole arbitrator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties based on the CFSL report and the suit filed by the respondent. The court held that the signatures of the respondent in the arbitration agreement are valid and genuine, and referred the disputes to the sole arbitrator. The court also dismissed the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and disposed of related applications and the main petition accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the arbitration agreement exists between the parties, considering the allegations of forgery and fabrication raised by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the CFSL report and the suit filed by the respondent to determine the existence of the arbitration agreement. It held that the signatures of the respondent in the arbitration agreement are valid and genuine, and referred the disputes to the sole arbitrator.
Final Decision: The disputes between the parties are referred to the sole arbitration of Justice S.P. Garg (Retired) Judge. The court dismissed the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and disposed of related applications and the main petition accordingly.
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
ARB.P. 34/2013 & CRL.M.A. 12644/2018, I.As. 4704/2015, 6663/2015, 13107/2018
1. The present arbitration petition 34/2013 has been filed seeking reference to arbitration of disputes between the parties in respect of an agreement dated 19th January, 2011 containing the following clause:-
“That in case of any disputes, differences, question or claim, counter claim [sic] arising out of our touching upon or concerning this Agreement or with regard to determination of duties, liabilities and obligations, rights, entitlements, benefits shall be referred to the Sole arbitration of an independent professional as may be appointed who will be a conseted arbitrator and the arbitrator will take place in New Delhi. The provisions of arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 shall apply and the place of arbitration proceedings shall be at New Delhi. In the event of non-reaching to a consent for appointment of consented arbitrator, the matter shall be referred to the court for the appointment of any independent arbitrator.”
2. The background is that the Respondent Mrs. Megha Singh, herein purchased a piece of land in Jim Corbett National Park in the year 2010 and constructed a property by the name Queens Fair Mont, which was a resort. The Petitioner-Mr. Mishra, was to market the said property and for the purpose of marketing, it is the case of the Petitioner that agreement dated 19th January, 2011 was entered into. The clauses of the agreement relied upon by the Petitioner are not relevant for the present. The Respondent filed a reply and alleged that the agreement itself was never executed and that she never signed the agreement dated 19th January, 2011. It was also alleged that the original agreement having not been filed before the Court, the matter is not liable to be referred to arbitration. The Respondent also relied upon an FIR which was filed by her against the Petitioner alleging misappropriation, etc.
3. In rejoinder, the Petitioner has placed on record the copy of the agreement containing the original signatures of the Respondent. Vide order dated 24th March, 2014, this Court passed the following directions:
“The petitioner has filed, along with the rejoinder as Annexure-2, photocopy of the agreement dated 19.01.2011 stated to have been arrived at with the respondent, which allegedly contains original signatures of the parties. According to the petitioner, the original of the agreement is in the possession of the respondent. Since the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the agreement which allegedly contains the signatures of the parties in original, the same would suffice.
Accordingly, the said document filed as Annexure-2 at pages 186 to 190 of the Part-I file be sealed and be sent to the CFSL for obtaining fresh report in terms of the order dated 26.07.2013. Adjourned to 21.05.2014.”
Pursuant to the above order, the Joint Registrar obtained the original signatures of Smt. Megha Singh on blank sheets, and the same were certified and were sent to the CFSL. The CFSL has since submitted the report dated 25th February, 2015, as per which it has concluded as under:-
“I have not observed any fundamental difference between both the sets of questioned and the standard signatures. Cumulative consideration of the aforesaid points of similarity observed between the questioned and the standard signatures in both the general &individual writing characteristics constitute the basis for the aforesaid opinion.
It has not been possible to ascertain the age of ink due to non availability of scientific technique in this Laboratory.”
4. In the meantime, the Respondent herein has also filed CS(OS) 3019/2014 seeking the following prayer:-
“In view of the above, it is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass:-
(A) a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for an amount of Rs. 20,15,000/- (Rupees twenty lacs fifteen thousand only) along with pendentlite interest @24% per annum
