In Brief
In a partnership dispute involving alleged forgery of an admission deed, the Supreme Court held that disputes cannot be referred to arbitration when the arbitration agreement itself is seriously disputed on grounds of forgery or fabrication. The Court found the admission deed highly doubtful based on material inconsistencies and its nine-year absence from records. It affirmed the High Court's dismissal of a petition to appoint an arbitrator, but quashed the High Court's order directing reference to arbitration. The Court clarified that arbitration requires demonstrated consent to arbitrate; when the agreement's very existence is disputed, courts must determine authenticity before arbitration can proceed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.