{"id":374794,"date":"2026-02-05T14:30:48","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T09:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=374794"},"modified":"2026-02-06T16:40:43","modified_gmt":"2026-02-06T11:10:43","slug":"forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Sections 8 &#038; 11"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> In a significant ruling on forged arbitration agreements, the Supreme Court held that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration when the very document containing the arbitration clause is alleged to be fabricated. The Court held that where the arbitration clause is embedded in a document alleged to be forged, the controversy &#8220;strikes at the very root of arbitral jurisdiction&#8221; and falls squarely within the category of non-arbitrable disputes.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The present case resolved around the conflict between arbitral jurisdiction and allegations of forgery of the very document containing the arbitration clause. The appeals arose from inconsistent orders of the High Court, which on the same factual matrix declined appointment of an arbitrator under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001544910\" target=\"_blank\">11<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726958\" target=\"_blank\">Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (A&amp;C Act), yet in separate proceedings directed reference to arbitration under Section 8, a Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., quashed and set aside the High Court&#8217;s order, dated 24-09-2021 and held that High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, was not justified in reappreciating evidence and dislodging concurrent findings led to declining reference to arbitration on the ground of serious fraud and non-production of the original agreement. The Court, however, affirmed the High Court&#8217;s order dated 11-03-2021 refusing appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11.<\/p>\n<h3>Factual Matrix<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the instant matter, appellant, Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 constituted a partnership firm, M\/s RDDHI Gold (firm), by a deed dated 01-12-2005. Respondent 1 claimed that on 17-04-2007, respondent nos. 2 and 3 executed a power of attorney in her favour empowering her to manage the affairs of the firm, and that on the same date a deed of admission and retirement (&#8220;Admission Deed&#8221;) was executed whereby respondents 2 and 3 retired and she was inducted as a partner.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">According to appellant, the business of the firm was later absorbed into <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">RDDHI Gold Pvt. Ltd.<\/span> by an absorption deed dated 27-02-2011. On 02-10-2016, Respondent 1 issued a legal notice asserting that on the basis of the Admission Deed she had acquired a 50.33% share in the firm and that Respondents 2 and 3 had retired in 2007. By reply dated 21-11-2016, appellant denied the execution of the Admission Deed and denied that respondent 1 had ever been inducted as a partner, asserting that the document was &#8220;a forged and fabricated document, concocted by the respondent no.1&#8221;.<\/p>\n<h3>Procedural History<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Section 9 proceedings under A&amp;C Act &#8212;<\/span> The respondent 1 sought interim protection and appointment of a receiver. The Trial Court allowed the application. The High Court, by order dated 04-05-2018, reversed the order holding that &#8220;the very existence\/execution of the &#8216;Admission Deed&#8217; is in dispute&#8221; and that it would not be prudent to grant interim protection when the arbitration agreement itself was not shown to exist prima facie. The Special Leave Petition against this order was dismissed, and the finding attained finality.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Civil Suit and Section 8 application &#8212;<\/span> The appellant filed suit seeking declaration that the Admission Deed was forged and for consequential injunctions. The respondent 1 applied for reference to arbitration under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001544989\" target=\"_blank\">8<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726958\" target=\"_blank\">A&amp;C Act<\/a>. The Trial Court dismissed the application on 06-09-2018, noting that allegations of fraud were serious and complicated and that the original Admission Deed or a certified copy had not been produced. The appellate court affirmed the order on 25-09-2020. However, in revision under Article 227, the High Court set aside both orders on 24-09-2021 and referred the dispute to arbitration.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Section 11 proceedings &#8212;<\/span> Parallelly, respondent 1 filed an application under Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator. The High Court dismissed it on 11-03-2021 holding that it would not be expedient to appoint an arbitrator until the issue of existence of the arbitration agreement was finally answered.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Aggrieved both appellant and respondent 1 challenged the respective orders before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<h3>Moot Point<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Whether, when the very existence of the arbitration agreement embedded in the Admission Deed is seriously disputed on allegations of forgery and fabrication, the dispute could be referred to arbitration under Section 8 and an arbitrator appointed under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001544910\" target=\"_blank\">11<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726958\" target=\"_blank\">A&amp;C Act<\/a>?<\/p>\n<h3>Court&#8217;s Analysis<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court reiterated the settled position that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;mere allegation of fraud simpliciter may not be a ground to nullify the arbitration agreement between the parties&#8221;.<\/span> However, the Court stated that where the court finds that there are <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">serious allegations of fraud<\/span> which either (i) make out a case of criminal offence or (ii) are so complicated that they require examination of voluminous evidence, the matter need not be relegated to arbitration. The Court further stated that the court can proceed with the suit <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;in cases where the fraud is alleged against the arbitration provision itself or is of such a nature which permeates the entire contract, including the agreement to arbitrate&#8221;.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Relying on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">A. Ayyasamy<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">A Paramasivam<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/7G02z14h\" target=\"_blank\">(2016) 10 SCC 386<\/a> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Avitel Post Studioz Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/jdveJD9N\" target=\"_blank\">(2021) 4 SCC 713<\/a>, the Court reiterated that a dispute becomes non-arbitrable where the arbitration agreement itself is alleged not to exist.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;The arbitration clause or agreement itself cannot be said to exist in a clear case in which the court finds that the party against whom breach is alleged cannot be said to have entered into the agreement relating to arbitration at all&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court found substantial material casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the Admission Deed such as, Respondent 2, the husband of Respondent 1, was shown as having retired in 2007, yet Respondent 1 admitted that he continued to function as partner till 2010, which was &#8220;wholly inconsistent with the recitals of the document&#8221;; the Admission Deed did not surface in any contemporaneous record for nearly nine years and appeared for the first time only in 2016; and post-2007 documents showed Respondent 1 acting only as guarantor and not as partner; banking and financial records consistently portrayed respondents 2 and 3 as continuing partners.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court also relied on the High Court&#8217;s earlier Section 9 order, which observed that for more than ten years Respondent 1 had not been given access to the business or profits and that the tentative finding of execution of the deed was unsustainable and noted that the said order had attained finality, therefore, could not be ignored.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court emphasised that &#8220;arbitration is founded upon consent&#8221; and that where the arbitration clause is embedded in a document whose existence is itself in serious dispute, the controversy strikes at the very root of arbitral jurisdiction and rendered such a dispute non-arbitrable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;Where the arbitration agreement itself is alleged to be forged or fabricated, the disputes ceases to be merely contractual and strikes at the very root of arbitral jurisdiction. A controversy of this nature falls squarely within the category of disputes that are generally recognized as non-arbitrable.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court held that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court had rightly found the allegations of fraud to be serious. The Court further held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, exceeded its limits by dislodging concurrent findings of fact, noting that supervisory jurisdiction is &#8220;not an appellate jurisdiction in disguise.&#8221;<\/p>\n<h3>Court&#8217;s Decision<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court held the dispute relating to the Admission Deed dated 17-04-2007 involved serious allegations going to the root of the arbitration agreement itself and was not amenable to arbitration at that stage.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court quashed and set aside the High Court&#8217;s order, dated 24-09-2021. referring the suit to arbitration under Section 8. The Court affirmed the High Court&#8217;s order dated 11-03-2021 refusing appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Barnali Mukherjee v. Rajia Begum, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/1L5O6v4Z\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2026 SCC OnLine SC 135<\/a>, Decided on 02-02-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment by Justice Alok Aradhe<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;Arbitration is founded upon consent. A party may be bound by the arbitral process only if it is first shown, even at a prima facie level, that such a party had agreed to submit disputes to arbitration.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":374800,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[98240,3226,10111,10131,57828,95221,86063,30168,56660,65562,59941,45421,10121,5363],"class_list":["post-374794","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-admission-deed","tag-arbitration","tag-arbitration-agreement","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-forged-document","tag-fraud-and-arbitrability","tag-jurisdiction-of-arbitrator","tag-justice-alok-aradhe","tag-justice-p-s-narasimha","tag-non-arbitrable-dispute","tag-partnership-dispute","tag-section-11","tag-section-8","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: SC Ruling Explained| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that allegation of Forged Arbitration Agreement strikes at the root of arbitral jurisdiction and makes such dispute non-arbitrable under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Sections 8 &amp; 11\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that allegation of Forged Arbitration Agreement strikes at the root of arbitral jurisdiction and makes such dispute non-arbitrable under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-05T09:00:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-06T11:10:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Forged-Arbitration-Agreement.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Sections 8 &amp; 11\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/\",\"name\":\"Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: SC Ruling Explained| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Forged-Arbitration-Agreement.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-05T09:00:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-06T11:10:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court holds that allegation of Forged Arbitration Agreement strikes at the root of arbitral jurisdiction and makes such dispute non-arbitrable under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Forged-Arbitration-Agreement.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Forged-Arbitration-Agreement.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Forged Arbitration Agreement\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Sections 8 &#038; 11\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: SC Ruling Explained| SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court holds that allegation of Forged Arbitration Agreement strikes at the root of arbitral jurisdiction and makes such dispute non-arbitrable under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Sections 8 & 11","og_description":"Supreme Court holds that allegation of Forged Arbitration Agreement strikes at the root of arbitral jurisdiction and makes such dispute non-arbitrable under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-02-05T09:00:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-06T11:10:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Forged-Arbitration-Agreement.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Sections 8 & 11","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/","name":"Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: SC Ruling Explained| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Forged-Arbitration-Agreement.webp","datePublished":"2026-02-05T09:00:48+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-06T11:10:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Supreme Court holds that allegation of Forged Arbitration Agreement strikes at the root of arbitral jurisdiction and makes such dispute non-arbitrable under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Forged-Arbitration-Agreement.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Forged-Arbitration-Agreement.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Forged Arbitration Agreement"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/forged-arbitration-agreement-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Sections 8 &#038; 11"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Forged-Arbitration-Agreement.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":276570,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/03\/preliminary-inquiry-under-section-11-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996\/","url_meta":{"origin":374794,"position":0},"title":"Preliminary Inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 3, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ayushi Raghuwanshi*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338138,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/30\/dispute-relating-infringement-of-copyright-is-arbitrable-orissa-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":374794,"position":1},"title":"Dispute relating to infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable: Orissa High Court reiterates","author":"Editor","date":"December 30, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court relied on Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406., wherein it was held that a claim for infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable, though in some manner the arbitrator would examine the right to copyright, a right in rem.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Orissa High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240654,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/14\/landlord-tenant-disputes-under-transfer-of-property-act-are-arbitrable-sc-lays-down-test-for-determining-non-arbitrability-of-disputes\/","url_meta":{"origin":374794,"position":2},"title":"&#8216;Landlord-tenant disputes under Transfer of Property Act are arbitrable&#8217;. SC lays down test for determining non-arbitrability of disputes","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 14, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana*, Sanjiv Khanna** and Krishna Murari, JJ has overruled the ratio in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, (2017) 10 SCC 706 wherein it was held that landlord-tenant disputes governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, are not arbitrable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206752,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/13\/amended-section-8-of-ac-act-does-not-inundate-entire-regime-of-special-legislation-in-non-arbitrable-casessc\/","url_meta":{"origin":374794,"position":3},"title":"Amended Section 8 of A&#038;C Act does not inundate entire regime of special legislation in non-arbitrable cases: SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 13, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court:\u00a0A Bench comprising of Uday U. Lalit and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. dismissed a review petition filed against Supreme Court's judgment dated 13-02-2018 [Emaar MGF Ltd. v. Aftab Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2378 (order)] whereby the appeals filed by review petitioners were dismissed. The appeals were filed challenging the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":296282,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/07\/decoding-arbitrability-and-determining-the-boundaries-of-arbitration-in-indian-jurisprudence\/","url_meta":{"origin":374794,"position":4},"title":"Decoding Arbitrability and Determining the Boundaries of Arbitration in Indian Jurisprudence","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Vasanth Rajasekaran\u2020 Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 57","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Experts Corner&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"indian jurisprudence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/indian-jurisprudence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/indian-jurisprudence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/indian-jurisprudence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/indian-jurisprudence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":244544,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/27\/arbitrability-of-fraud\/","url_meta":{"origin":374794,"position":5},"title":"Arbitrability of Fraud: Is the Anomaly Solved","author":"Editor","date":"February 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shuchi Sejwar* and Arpit Lahoti**","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/arbitration-8.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/arbitration-8.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/arbitration-8.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/arbitration-8.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/arbitration-8.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374794","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=374794"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374794\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/374800"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=374794"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=374794"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=374794"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}