RAJIA BEGUM versus BARNALI MUKHERJEE

RAJIA BEGUM versus BARNALI MUKHERJEE

Because there existed substantial and cogent prima facie material casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the Admission Deed and the arbitration clause was embedded in that disputed document, the dispute went to the root of the arbitration agreement and was non-arbitrable at this stage; accordingly the High Court order referring the suit to arbitration was quashed and the High Court order declining appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 was affirmed.

Parties
Appellant: Barnali Mukherjee; Respondent: Rajia Begum; Respondent: Aftabuddin; Respondent: Raihan Ikbal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed and partly dismissed; CA No.674 of 2026 dismissed and CA No.675 of 2026 allowed
Legal Topics
Arbitrability, Fraud, Forgery, Appointment of Arbitrator, Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Article 227 Constitution of India, Admission Deed, Partnership Dispute
Arbitration Constitutional Law Arbitrability Fraud Forgery Appointment of Arbitrator Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barnali Mukherjee

Appellant

Rajia Begum

Respondent

Aftabuddin

Respondent

Raihan Ikbal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disputes can be referred to arbitration or an arbitrator appointed when the existence of the arbitration agreement is seriously disputed on allegations of forgery and fabrication
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in declining appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the arbitration agreement itself is in serious dispute

Ratio Decidendi

Because there existed substantial and cogent prima facie material casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the Admission Deed and the arbitration clause was embedded in that disputed document, the dispute went to the root of the arbitration agreement and was non-arbitrable at this stage; accordingly the High Court order referring the suit to arbitration was quashed and the High Court order declining appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed and partly dismissed; CA No.674 of 2026 dismissed and CA No.675 of 2026 allowed

Orders

  • Order dated 24.09.2021 of the High Court allowing the respondent no.1's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is quashed and set aside
  • Order dated 11.03.2021 of the High Court rejecting the respondent no.1's application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is affirmed