VBC 1 arp26.10-25.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE ARBITRATION PETITION NO.26 OF 2010 Shashikant Keshav Patil. ...Petitioner. Vs. Suryakant Keshav Patil & Anr. ...Respondents. .... None for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D.Dhanuka with Smt.Vaishali Choudhari for Respondent No. 1. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 25, 2010. P.C. : This is a Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration agreement is contained in clause 20 of the Deed of Partnership dated 1 January 1993. The Petitioner has averred that the First Respondent has got a retirement deed fabricated and that the signature of the Petitioner was forged. These allegations are to be found in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Arbitration Petition. The Petitioner also annexed a copy of the complaint filed by the Petitioner in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Borivali. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in N.Radhakrishnan vs. VBC 2 arp26.10-25.11 Maestro.Engineers, (2010) 1 SCC 72, such a dispute involving serious allegations pertaining to fraud is not arbitrable and the dispute would have to be tried in a Civil Court. The Supreme Court held thus: “In the present dispute faced by us, the appellant had made serious allegations against the respondents alleging them to commit malpractices in the account books and manipulate the finances of the partnership firm, which, in our opinion, cannot be properly dealt with by the arbitrator. As such, the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition of the appellant to refer the matter to an arbitrator.” For the aforesaid reason, this Petition under Section 11(6) cannot be entertained and shall accordingly stand dismissed. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on the contention of the First Respondent that the claim is barred by limitation. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)