RAJIA BEGUM versus BARNALI MUKHERJEE

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 02-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 270 : 2026 INSC 106
Rajia Begum 
v. 
Barnali Mukherjee
(Civil Appeal No. 674 of 2026)
02 February 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the disputes can be referred to arbitration or an arbitrator 
can be appointed when the very existence of arbitration agreement 
itself is seriously disputed on the allegations of forgery and 
fabrication; whether in the factual matrix of the case, the disputes 
between the parties could have been referred to the arbitration u/s.8 
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and correspondingly 
whether the High Court was justified in declining the appointment 
of an arbitrator u/s.11 of the 1996 Act.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Impact of fraud 
on arbitrability of a dispute – Present appeals arise from a 
partnership dispute in which Respondent no.1 (in CA No.675 of 
2026) claimed entry into the firm relying on an Admission Deed, 
and as foundation of arbitration agreement, whose execution 
is denied and is alleged to be forged by the Appellant therein – 
High Court on the same factual foundation involving the same 
alleged arbitration agreement, has in one proceeding directed 
the parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration and 
in another proceeding, declined to appoint an arbitrator on 
the ground, that the existence of the arbitration agreement is 
itself in serious doubt – Challenge to:
Held: When an allegation of fraud is made with regard to arbitration 
agreement itself, such a dispute is generally recognised as a 
dispute, which is in the realm of non-arbitrability and the court 
will examine it, as a jurisdictional issue only to enquire whether 
the dispute has become non-arbitrable due to one or the other 
reason – In the present case, admission Deed is not genuine – There 
exists substantial and cogent material which casts serious doubt 
* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 
271
Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee
on the genuineness of the Admission Deed – Arbitration clause 
does not exist independently but is embedded in the document 
whose existence is seriously disputed – The dispute relating to the 
Admission Deed involves serious allegations going to the root of 
the arbitration agreement itself and is not amenable to arbitration 
at this stage – 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 – Where the arbitration agreement itself is alleged to 
be forged or fabricated, the disputes cease 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 – Order passed by the 
High Court allowing the respondent no.1’s application u/s.8 of the 
Act referring the dispute in Suit to be resolved through arbitration 
is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside – Order of the High 
Court rejecting the respondent no.1’s application u/s.11 of the Act 
for the appointment of arbitrator warrants no interference and is 
affirmed. [Paras 15, 16, 20, 24]
Fraud – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Impact of 
fraud on arbitrability of a dispute:
Held: Mere allegation of fraud simpliciter may not be a ground to 
nullify the arbitration agreement between the parties, but where 
the court finds that there are serious allegations of fraud which 
make a case of criminal offence or where the allegations of fraud 
are so complicated, which need to be decided on the basis of 
voluminous evidence, the court can sidetrack the arbitration 
agreement and proceed with the suit – Court can proceed with 
the suit in cases where the fraud is alleged against the arbitration 
provision itself or is of a such a nature which permeates the entire 
contract, including the agreement to arbitrate, meaning thereby in 
those cases where fraud goes to the validity of the contract itself 
which contains an arbitration clause or the validity of the arbitration 
clause itself. [Para 12]
Constitution of India – Article 227 – Arbitration and Conciliation 
Act, 1996:
Held: Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had 
concurrently held that the allegations of fraud in the present 
case were serious and that the respondent no.1 had failed to 
272
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
produce the original Admissio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.