Forgery Allegation Alone No Ground To Reject Plea For Arbitrator Appointment: Bombay High Court

Justice Amit Borkar appointed Advocate Ranjeev Carvalho as sole arbitrator to decide the Patkar House redevelopment dispute between developer Kiran Narendra Patkar and Milan Narendra Patkar. All objections concerning the agreement's execution, genuineness, and enforceability were left open for the arbitrator.

The Court found that a registered will and a later gift deed referred to the redevelopment transaction. These documents provided sufficient prima facie material to permit arbitration, although the respondents remained free to prove their forgery allegations before the tribunal.

The court observed: “The submission based upon Rajia Begum succeeds only to a limited extent. I accept that where the arbitration agreement is alleged to be forged, the Court has to consider that objection as a jurisdictional issue. However, I do not accept that merely raising such an allegation requires rejection of the Section 11 Application. The real test is whether the material makes the non-existence of the arbitration agreement so clear that arbitration cannot be allowed to start. In the present case, that position is not reached.”

Background

The dispute concerned the proposed redevelopment of Patkar House in Mumbai. Kiran Patkar claimed that a development agreement executed in December 2024 granted him exclusive and irrevocable redevelopment rights over the property.

After co-owner Narendra Dattaram Patkar died in April 2025, Milan Patkar allegedly executed a gift deed in February 2026 in favour of Sujal Shantinath Mangudkar. Kiran claimed that this breached the development agreement and affected his redevelopment rights. He invoked arbitration in June 2026, but the respondents opposed the appointment.

Applicant's Submissions

Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud argued that the forgery allegation was unsupported and intended to obstruct the redevelopment. He relied on Narendra Patkar's registered will dated April 11, 2025, which referred to the development agreement, redevelopment of Patkar House and consideration payable to the grandchildren.

He also relied on a recital in the February 2026 gift deed referring to the registered will.

Respondents' Submissions

Advocate Aloukik Pai contended that Milan Patkar and her late husband had never signed the development agreement. He argued that Narendra Patkar was around 90, bedridden, seriously ill and unable to understand the English document when it was allegedly executed.

Reliance was placed on Rajia Begum to argue that an allegation of a forged arbitration agreement raised a jurisdictional and non-arbitrability issue which the Court had to decide before making a reference.

Mangudkar separately claimed independent ownership of two shops under an earlier registered gift deed of January 2024. She argued that she was not a signatory to the development agreement and could not be compelled to arbitrate.

Court's Findings

The Court held that consent to arbitrate must be shown even at a prima facie level, but a Section 11 court should not conduct a full trial into signatures, medical condition, witnesses and execution where these matters required evidence.

The registered will and subsequent gift deed were independent documents that supported the alleged agreement's existence. The forgery allegation was serious, but could not itself be treated as proof.

The Court left it to the tribunal to determine whether Mangudkar, as a non-signatory, was bound by the arbitration clause and what effect her earlier gift deed had on the redevelopment rights.

It also converted Kiran Patkar's Section 9 petition into an application under Section 17 for consideration by the arbitrator and rejected the respondents' request to stay the judgment.

For Applicant: Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud ;

For Respondents: Advocate Aloukik R. Pai