Latest JudgementArbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee, 2026

It confirms that arbitral jurisdiction depends on valid consent, and fraud affecting agreement strikes at its root.

Supreme Court of India·3 February 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

3 February 2026

Judges

Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 8, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6), Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

Facts of the Case

Dispute arose from a family-run jewellery firm, M/s RDDHI Gold, originally with three partners.
Appellant claimed a 2007 Deed of Admission and Retirement inducted her as partner, retired others, and included an arbitration clause.
Respondent denied existence of the deed, alleging it was forged.
Business acquired by private company in 2011; dispute arose in 2016 when appellant relied on the deed.
Conflicting High Court decisions: one referred to arbitration under Section 8; another refused appointment under Section 11(6).
Appellant failed to produce original deed or certified copy, making the arbitration clause disputed and illusory.

Whether arbitration can be compelled when the contract containing the arbitration clause is alleged to be forged or non-existent?
Whether serious allegations of fraud regarding the arbitration agreement itself render the dispute non-arbitrable?
Whether a civil court must first decide allegations going to the very existence of the contract before referring the parties to arbitration?
Whether Section 8 or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act can be invoked when consent underlying arbitration is disputed?
Whether allegations of fraud requiring voluminous evidence or criminal investigation can justify sidestepping the arbitration agreement?

Court held that serious allegations of fraud concerning the existence of the arbitration agreement make the dispute non-arbitrable.
Civil court must decide whether the contract and arbitration clause exist before any referral to arbitration.
Absence of original or certified copy of deed renders arbitration clause illusory and meaningless.
Mere allegation of fraud may not nullify arbitration, but serious allegations affecting validity of agreement justify civil adjudication first.
High Court order referring the matter to arbitration under Section 8 was quashed.
Appeal challenging refusal to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 was dismissed.

Dispute over alleged forged arbitration agreement is non-arbitrable.
Civil courts have jurisdiction to examine fraud allegations going to the existence of contract.
Arbitration cannot be compelled in cases where consent or agreement itself is seriously disputed.

Clarifies the limits of arbitrability under Indian law.
Confirms that arbitral jurisdiction depends on valid consent, and fraud affecting agreement strikes at its root.
Emphasizes importance of original documents or certified copies for arbitration referral.
Aligns with precedents (A. Ayyasamy, Avitel, Bihar State Food Corp) that serious allegations of fraud can take a matter out of arbitration.
Protects parties from being forced into arbitration where underlying agreement is disputed and potentially forged.