- (1.) The present is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We are fully aware of the fact that after the amendment of 2016, with effect from 2015, ordinarily this Court will not go into questions of forgery or fraud at this stage. However, as this is an ex facie case of forgery, we are constrained to observe that petitions like this have to be dismissed at the threshold.
(2.) It is alleged by the petitioner that an Agreement was entered into on 1st August, 2013 between the petitioner and the respondent which contained an arbitration clause which read as follows: "10.ARBITRATION, GOVERNING LAWS and JURISDICTION: In the event of any dispute or difference between the Parties to this Agreement in respect of or concerning or connected with the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement or arising out of this agreement, such dispute or difference shall be referred to sole arbitrator appointed with the mutual consent of party, in accordance with the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any modification or amendment thereof. All such arbitration proceeding shall be in the English language and shall be held and conducted exclusively in Mumbai. The decision of such arbitration shall be binding and conclusive upon the Parties and may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction."
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argued before us that on this date I.e. 1st August, 2013 his client was in Myanmar and therefore could not possibly have signed this Agreement. He also produced the passport of his client to this effect. Further he has shown to us the signature of his client contained in the passport is completely different from the signature on every page of the Agreement dated 1st August, 2013.;