Allegations of fraud and forgery do not inherently preclude the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal unless they directly impinge upon the arbitration agreement itself.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the `A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 17.12.2020 (hereafter the `impugned award') delivered by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by Justice (Retired) Manmohan Sarin, former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court as the Sole Arbitrator (hereafter the `Arbitral Tribunal').

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to an alleged Agreement to Sell dated 07.08.2014 (hereafter the `Agreement to Sell') executed in respect of a property bearing number B-II/6, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi (hereafter the `property') for a consideration of Rs.11 crores.

3. The petitioner denies the execution of the Agreement to Sell and states that the said document is a forged document as it does not bear his signatures. This is the principal dispute between the parties. The petitioner contends that the impugned award is liable to be set aside as the Arbitral Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute.

Factual Context

4. It is stated that the respondent was willing to invest in a plot of land in India and the petitioner had offered to sell the property to the respondent. In the month of May 2014, several discussions took place between the petitioner, respondent (Late Mr Gurchait Singh Chima) and one Mr Surinder Wadhwa (representative of the respondent) for sale of the property.

5. The respondent states that it was agreed between the parties that the property would be sold to the respondent for a total amount of Rs.11 crores. Accordingly, on 07.08.2014, the petitioner executed the Agreement to Sell in the presence of Mr Surinder Wadhwa, who is the representative of the respondent. The respondent was not present in India at the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell, however, he claimed that he had witnessed the same through an online video call (that is, through FaceTime).

6. The respondent further contended that on the same date, that is 07.08.2014, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.3 crores by a cheque bearing no. 016010 drawn on ICICI Bank and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.8 crores, once the petitioner furnished a Conveyance Deed in his favour after conversion to `freehold'.

7. The respondent further stated that an amount of Rs.1.5 crores and Rs.5 crores was also transferred to the petitioner in furtherance of the Agreement to Sell; and, on receipt of the original title deeds from the petitioner, the respondent, through his representative (Mr Surinder Wadhwa), transferred the balance amount to the petitioner by the month of August, 2016.

8. Mr Surinder Wadhwa (representative of the respondent), by a letter dated 24.01.2017, called upon the petitioner to execute a Conveyance Deed in respect of the property, in favour of the respondent. However, the petitioner, by a letter dated 07.02.2017, denied that he had sold the property in question, to the respondent.

9. The respondent was aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner as full consideration for the property was paid in terms of the Agreement to Sell, however, the petitioner had failed to execute a Conveyance Deed in his favour.

10. Thereafter, several communications were exchanged between Mr Surinder Wadh