Forgery dispute over the arbitration deed can defeat referral to arbitration until a valid agreement is shown.

Serious allegations that the admission deed containing the arbitration clause was forged and fabricated meant the existence of the arbitration agreement itself was in doubt, so the dispute was not referable to arbitration at the Sections 8 and 11 stage until valid consent was shown at least prima facie. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be used to reappreciate evidence or displace concurrent factual findings that the deed's genuineness was seriously disputed and the original or certified copy was not produced. The referral order was unsustainable, while refusal to appoint an arbitrator was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a dispute founded on an allegedly forged and fabricated admission deed, which itself contains the arbitration clause, is amenable to arbitration at the stage of Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to refer the suit to arbitration despite concurrent findings doubting the existence of the arbitration agreement.

Issue (i): whether a dispute founded on an allegedly forged and fabricated admission deed, which itself contains the arbitration clause, is amenable to arbitration at the stage of Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Analysis: Serious allegations of fraud touching the arbitration agreement itself stand on a different footing from ordinary contractual disputes. Where the very existence or genuineness of the document containing the arbitration clause is in grave doubt, the dispute goes to the root of arbitral jurisdiction. Consent remains the foundation of arbitration, and an arbitrator cannot be appointed until it is shown, at least prima facie, that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement. The material on record, together with the earlier final prima facie assessment in the Section 9 proceedings, supported the view that the admission deed was under serious cloud and required a full-fledged inquiry rather than reference to arbitration.

Conclusion: The dispute was not amenable to arbitration at this stage, and the refusal to appoint an arbitrator was correct.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court was justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to refer the suit to arbitration despite concurrent findings doubting the existence of the arbitration agreement

Analysis: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not an appellate jurisdiction and does not permit reappreciation of evidence. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had concurrently held that the allegations of fraud were serious and that the original admission deed or a certified copy was not produced as required. Those concurrent findings were grounded in the record and could not be displaced merely on a different view of the facts. In these circumstances, directing reference of the suit to arbitration was beyond the proper scope of Article 227.

Conclusion: The order referring the suit to arbitration was unsustainable, while the order declining appointment of an arbitrator was correctly affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The controversy arising from the disputed admission deed was held to be non-arbitrable at the present stage, the order directing arbitration was set aside, and the refusal to appoint an arbitrator was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: When the very existence or genuineness of the document containing the arbitration clause is seriously disputed on allegations of forgery, the matter is non-arbitrable until the arbitration agreement itself is shown to exist, and supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to overturn concurrent factual findings on that issue.

---