Arbitration agreement validity must be decided first when forgery is alleged before any arbitrator appointment.

Existence and validity of an arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a jurisdictional prerequisite that must be decided at the threshold when specifically disputed. Where forgery or fabrication is alleged, the Chief Justice or designate cannot appoint an arbitrator without first determining whether the deed is genuine and whether a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement exists. The court held that such objections go to maintainability of the request for appointment and cannot be left to the arbitral tribunal at the appointment stage. The appointment order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for a threshold determination on genuineness and existence of the arbitration agreement.

---

---

Issues: Whether, when the existence of the arbitration agreement is specifically denied and allegations of forgery and fabrication are raised, the Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can appoint an arbitrator without first deciding whether a valid arbitration agreement exists.

Analysis: The settled position is that the existence of an arbitration agreement and the party's membership of that agreement are matters the Chief Justice or his designate must decide at the threshold under Section 11. Such existence goes to jurisdiction, because without a valid arbitration agreement the request for appointment of an arbitrator is not maintainable. Issues involving a claim that the agreement itself is forged or fabricated cannot be left to the arbitral tribunal when they bear directly on the validity of the very clause invoked for appointment.

Conclusion: The Chief Justice or his designate was required to decide whether the deed dated 19.5.2000 was genuine and whether a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed before appointing an arbitrator; the appointment without such determination was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The appointment order was set aside and the matter was sent back for a threshold decision on genuineness of the deed and existence of an arbitration agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement is a jurisdictional prerequisite that must be decided by the Chief Justice or his designate when specifically disputed, especially where forgery or fabrication is alleged.

---