08 March 2021 | Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. | RF Nariman, BR Gavai & Hrishikesh Roy JJ | 2021 SCC OnLine SC 190

The High Court had allowed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator, rejecting the argument that the arbitration agreement was a forged document. Affirming the appointment, the Supreme Court, however, in light of the tests set out in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, said that the arbitrator must decide the existence of the arbitration agreement as a preliminary issue. Noting that the facts were “curiouser and curiouser,” the court also found that “this is a case which eminently cries for the truth to out between the parties through documentary evidence and cross examination.”

Also, the court said that Vidya Drolia had read the prima facie test of Section 8 ACA into Section 11(6A) ACA, but the former was appealable, and the latter was not. Hence, the Parliament was exhorted to make orders made under Section 11 (6) read with Section 11 (6A) appealable at par with Section 8 ACA.

Read the judgment here .