A party claiming forgery or fraud affecting an arbitration agreement must provide sufficient evidence to preclude referral to arbitration; allegations must be substantiated with a prima facie case.

ORDER

The instant suit had been initiated primarily seeking for a relief of declaration relating to various documents as to have been forged, fabricated and also to declare the arbitration clause in the letter dated 11.04.2022 as null and void and unenforceable apart from seeking a direction to the defendants to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.67,66,04,722/-. The parties herein are referred to as per the rank in the plaint.

2) An application had been filed by the first defendant under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Arbitration Act”) seeking to refer the parties to the arbitration.

3) Heard Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Sivanandaraaj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Adith Narayan Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Arun C.Mohan, learned Counsel for the first respondent, Ms.K.Jayaganga, learned Counsel for the second respondent and Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned Counsel for third respondent.

4) Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/first defendant would submit that the suit itself as framed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. He would submit that the plaintiff being an unregistered Association cannot maintain a suit. That apart, he would submit that the claim in the suit itself would have to be thrown for misjoinder of parties. Apart from that he would submit that the plaintiff claims that certain documents relied upon by the first defendant are forged documents created fraudulently. If that is the case, the other signatories of the document who had signed on behalf of the plaintiff also ought to have been made as parties to the suit. Without being them made as parties, the relief sought for in the plaint could not be granted.

5) He would submit that the first defendant was working as Chief Business Officer and Principal Officer with the plaintiff. He had originally joined as a Director of Business Affairs and in appreciation of his work, he was promoted to the position of Chief Business Officer and was also appointed as the Principal Officer. He would submit that the first defendant played a pivotal role in arranging for a loan during the financial crisis and was also responsible for the various statutory compliances. He would further submit that from the date of entry into the service, the plaintiff had been varying the contract of service by clarifications and addendums. Till the variation granted on 06.04.2022, any disputes that arose between the parties would have to be resolved before a Court of Competent jurisdiction. In the variations/ addendums given on 06.04.2022, a Clause for arbitration came to be introduced with Chennai being the venue of arbitration. However, by a further addendum dated 11.04.2022, the compensation payable to the first defendant was also varied and altered with a Clause for arbitration of disputes at Singapore International Arbitration Center (hereinafter referred to as “SIAC”) under the SIAC Rules.

6) He would further submit, that the same has also been ratified by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff, which was reflected in the subsequent letters issued by the Chairperson of the Board, the Board Secretary apart from the e-mail sent to the first defendant by the Board Chairperson, the HR Manager and also the Financial Head. Under the said documents, the first defendant was entitled to various emoluments and he being the head was also authorised to withdraw such emoluments to himself. The first defendant faced with better opportunity, had decided to leave the services of the plaintiff and ha