INDERCHAND KOCHAR vs D DEVASITHAM
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 16.10.2026
DELIVERED ON : 30.10.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 513 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011772462026}
and O.A.No.528 of 2025
1. Inderchand Kochar
No.2 22, Kennet Lane, Egmore
Chennai - 600008.
2. Jitesh Kumar Kochar
No.2 22, Kennet Lane, Egmore
Chennai – 600008.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
D.Devasitham
Residing at No.3/137,
Thazhambur Main Road,
Karanai Village, Thiruporur Taluk,
Kancheepuram – 600130.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER IN O.P.: Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate
______________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent in terms of the
Land Aggregator Agreement dated 06.03.2016.
PRAYER IN O.A.: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the
Original Side Rules and Section 9(1)(c) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant an order of interim injunction
restraining the respondent, their men, servants, agents or anybody
claiming right either under or through them from disposing of,
alienating, encumbering, selling, transferring creating any third party
rights or charge or interest or dealing with the Schedule mentioned
property, more fully described in the application, or any part thereof
either through themselves or on behalf of their agents and pass such
further or other orders.
For Petitioner(s)/
Applicant(s):
Mr.Nithyeash Natraj
for Mr.Anirudh A.Sriram
[Thru VC]
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Umashankar
Asst by Mr.C.Krishna Karthi
for Mr.I.Anbupriyan
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the petition under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the appointment of a
sole arbitrator. They have also filed an application under Section 9
of the Act in O.A.No.528 of 2025 seeking an interim injunction. This
______________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
judgment disposes of both the arbitration petition and the interim
application.
2.1. The facts relevant are that the petitioners own land at
Kalavakkam Village, Thiruporur Taluk. They wanted to buy an
adjacent plot measuring 24½ cents. The respondent claimed real
estate expertise and agreed to act as a land aggregator to acquire
this adjacent plot from one Moses and convey it to the petitioners.
2.2. It is asserted that, on 06.03.2016, the parties entered
into a Land Aggregator Agreement. The total sale consideration was
fixed at Rs.90,00,000/-, which was paid in cash. On 02.03.2022,
Moses executed a settlement deed for the property in favour of the
respondent. On 12.01.2023, the respondent wrote to the first
petitioner confirming that he had acquired the property and would
soon execute the sale deed after clearing some minor
encroachments.
2.3. The asseverations are to the effect that, instead of
conveying the land to the petitioners, the respondent executed a
______________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
General Power of Attorney on 20.02.2023, in favor of one Sairam.
Upon discovering this through an encumbrance certificate, the
petitioners issued a legal notice under Section 21 of the Act and
initiated these proceedings.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the
respondent received the full sale consideration of Rs.90,00,000/-,
but breached the agreement by executing a power of attorney in
favour of a third party, violating Clause 5 of the agreement.
3.2. Learned counsel pointed out that the respondent has
taken contradictory stands in his pleadings. In the counter affidavit
filed in the original application, the respondent stated that the
agreement is forged, that the stamp paper dates back to October
2015, and that the petitioners filled up blank signed papers;
however, in his counter statement filed in the arbitration petition, he
baldly stated that the signature on the agreement is not his.
______________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
3.3. He further submitted that the parties made sincere
attempts to resolve the matter and went through six rounds of
mediation, but these talks failed to yield any fruitful decision.
3.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Supreme
Court judgment in Salson Liquors Private Limited v. United Spirits
1
Limited , where the Court held that issues regarding the
genuineness or execution of an agreement can be taken up as
preliminary issues by the arbitrator, leaving all contentions open for
the parties to raise.
4.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent stoutly
argued that the agreement is a forged and fabricated document. He
contended that no money was paid and that the agreement is
unenforceable and against public policy.
4.2. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a
recent Supreme Court decision in Rajia Begum v. Barnali
2
Mukherjee , wherein it was held that when the very existence of an
1 Order dated 20.02.2026 in SLP (C) No.16022 of 2025
2 2026 INSC 106
______________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
underlying agreement containing an arbitration clause is seriously
disputed on allegations of forgery and fraud, the dispute is rendered
non-arbitrable at that stage.
5. This court heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the documents on record and the legal precedents cited at
the bar.
6. In the case at hand, the respondent himself admitted to
acquiring the property and wrote a confirmatory letter to the
petitioners on 12.01.2023, enclosing parent documents and
promising to complete the registration. The existence of the
arbitration clause in the agreement is not in genuine doubt given
the respondent's own written admissions and letters. The disputes
raised by the parties are commercial in nature and fall squarely
within the scope of the arbitration clause.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly resisted
the petition under Section 11 of the Act by placing reliance upon the
recent decision of the Apex Court in Rajia Begum (supra) ,
______________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
contending that where the existence of the underlying agreement is
seriously disputed on allegations of forgery and fraud, the dispute is
rendered non-arbitrable at the threshold. However, a close reading
of the decision in Rajia Begum (supra) indicates that the Supreme
Court declined arbitration because the case possessed exceptional
features, viz., there was a complete absence of the disputed
document from contemporaneous records for nearly nine years; the
document did not independently contain a standalone arbitration
clause; and proceedings under Section 9 of the Act had already
attained finality with a clear prima facie finding that the existence of
the document was highly doubtful.
8. The factual matrix of the present case is fundamentally
distinguishable from Rajia Begum (supra). In the case at hand, the
respondent himself authored a confirmatory letter dated
12.01.2023 addressed to the first petitioner, explicitly
acknowledging the acquisition of the subject property and promising
to complete the registration. Furthermore, the respondent has
taken contradictory positions across pleadings, claiming in the
counter-affidavit to the application filed under Section 9 of the Act
______________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
that the agreement was a creation out of blank signed papers, while
baldly denying his signature altogether in the counter-statement
filed in the Original Petition. As emphasized by the Supreme Court
in Rajia Begum , an allegation of fraud or forgery renders a matter
non-arbitrable only when it goes to the root of the validity of the
arbitration agreement itself in clear cases where a party cannot be
said to have entered into it at all. Here, the respondent's written
admissions and contradictory stances show that the plea of forgery
is merely a thin veil to wriggle out of binding commercial
obligations.
9. The appropriate course of action for a case of this nature is
governed by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Salson
Liquors Private Limited (supra). The Apex Court categorically held
that where issues are raised regarding the genuineness or valid
execution of agreements containing an arbitration clause, such
contentions can be appropriately taken up and considered as a
preliminary issue by the Arbitrator, keeping all contentions of both
sides open. In view of the respondent's own written admissions and
letters, the existence of the arbitration clause is not in genuine
______________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
doubt. Therefore, following the dictum in Salson Liquors Private
Limited (supra), the matter is a fit case for the arbitral tribunal to
examine the preliminary objections, ensuring that the doors of
arbitration are not shut at the threshold on the basis of a bald and
afterthought plea of forgery.
10. The Arbitration Original Petition is allowed with the
following directions:
(i) Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.Suresh Kumar, a retired
judge of this Court, is appointed as the Sole
Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and adjudicate
the disputes between the parties in terms of the
Land Aggregator Agreement dated 06.03.2016.
(ii) The learned Arbitrator is requested to file the
disclosure declaration in terms of Section 12 of the
Act, before entering upon the reference.
(iii) The seat and venue of the arbitration
proceedings shall be Chennai, in accordance with
Clause 11 of the Agreement.
______________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
(iv) The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted
under the aegis of the Madras High Court Arbitration
Centre in accordance with the Madras High Court
Arbitration Proceedings Rules, 2017. The arbitral fee
and administrative charges shall be governed by the
Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (Administrative
Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2017, and shall be
borne equally by both parties.
(v) All contentions, claims, counterclaims, and
defenses on merits are left open to be urged by the
respective parties before the learned Arbitrator.
11. To protect the subject matter of the dispute pending the
constitution of the arbitral tribunal and the adjudication of interim
reliefs, the interim order granted earlier should be continued.
Therefore, the interim order granted earlier in O.A.No.528 of 2025
shall continue to remain in force until the Arbitrator decides the
application under Section 17 of the Act, which the petitioners are
granted liberty to file within a period of thirty days from the date of
entering upon the reference.
______________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
12. The respondent is granted liberty to file an application
under Section 16 of the Act before the learned Arbitrator to
challenge the competence of the tribunal or the validity of the
agreement.
The Original Petition and the Original Application are ordered
accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ)
30.10.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
To
The Assistant Registrar,
Madras High Court Arbitration Centre,
Chennai-600 104.
______________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
2026:MHC:4378
Arb OP (Com.Div) No.513 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
(sasi)
Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 513 of 2026
30.10.2026
______________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )