Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee, 2026
It confirms that arbitral jurisdiction depends on valid consent, and fraud affecting agreement strikes at its root.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
3 February 2026
Judges
Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
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.
Issues
-
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?
Held
-
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.
Analysis
-
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.