The court confirmed that disputes on the validity of arbitration agreements must be assessed within arbitration proceedings, not through premature judicial interference.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The respondents herein initiated arbitration proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.9,34,26,256/- with interest from the petitioner herein and another. According to the respondents, the petitioner herein and another borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,00,000/- from the respondents on 10.12.2015 agreeing to repay the same on or before 30.12.2016 together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

3. The petitioner herein who was arrayed as the 2nd respondent in the arbitration proceedings filed a petition under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, questioning the very maintainability of the claim petition before the arbitrator on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the respondents herein. The main contention of the petitioner herein is that the signature of the petitioner in the arbitration agreement was a forged one. It was the further contention of the petitioner that the memorandum of financial agreement which was basis for the initiation of the arbitration proceedings was examined by a Forensic Expert and compared with the admitted signatures of the petitioner in a Registered Sale Deed dated 07.02.2016, affidavit of the petitioner filed before the High Court dated 12.11.2018 in W.P.No.30085 of 2018 and letter of the petitioner dated 19.02.2016 addressed to the Deputy Director, Directorate General of Central Excise and Intellgiance, Chennai. It was stated by the petitioner that the said expert by its report dated 10.03.2020 had opined that his signatures found in the Memorandum of Financial Agreement, should have been a forged one. Based on the said report, the petitioner had filed an application before the Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stating that there is no valid arbitration agreement and hence, the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to enter arbitration.

4. The respondents herein filed a counter and resisted the same on the ground that based on the opinion given by a Private Expert, the petitioner cannot maintain the present application. Apart from that, the respondents also stated that in the present application, the petitioner only denied the genuineness of the Mermorandum of Financial Agreement, but he had not denied the receipt of money, execution of cheques and contents of previous agreement dated 10.12.2015 which led to the financial agreement dated 28.03.2017 and consecutively, they prayed for dismissal of the application filed under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. During the course of the hearing of Section 16 application, the Arbitral Tribunal decided to obtain an independent expert opinion from the authorised Forensic Science Department and forwarded the document to one Dr.S.Raghuragavendra, Forensic Expert, Forensic and Biometric Investigation Service, Chennai. After receipt of opinion from the said expert, the Arbitrator concluded that as if the expert appointed by him rendered opinion that he was not a position to arrive at a definite conclusion based on the admitted and disputed signatures.

6. Ultimately, the Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the expert opinion is not conclusive and handwriting of a person can also be proved by other means. After observing so, the tribunal proceeded to hold that the plea of fo