PRAVIN ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD v. GALAXY INFRA AND ENGINEERING PVT. LTD

submissions made before the Single Judge. The allegation that the Consultancy Agreement of 7th July, 2014 had a signature that may not be that of Mr. MGS was brushed aside stating that an arbitration agreement need not be signed by the parties. That is entirely besides the point. Mr. MGS sworn to an affidavit filed before the High Court that the signatures appearing on the 7th July, 2014 agreement are not his signatures, as a result of which the Appellant cannot be said to have entered into an agreement at all on 7th July, 2014. Again, the Single Judge’s finding that there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties as contained in the “draft agreement” exchanged by email dated 7th July, 2014, is incorrect for two reasons. The draft agreement sent by email was exchanged on 15th July, 2014 and not on 7th July, 2014. Secondly, the email in reply to the email of 15th July, 2014 shows that there was no concluded contract between the parties. Also, the pleading with which the parties went to Court was that there was a concluded contract between the parties on 7th July, 2014. There was no pleading that on 15th July, 2014, a draft agreement was exchanged between the parties, as a result of which a concluded contract emanated therefrom. [Paras 23-26][1196-D-G; 1197-A-G]

2.2 The emails dated 22nd July, 2014 and 25th July, 2014 produced here for the first time as well as certain correspondence between SBPDCL and the Respondent do show that there is some dealing between the Appellant and the Respondent qua a tender floated by SBPDCL, but that is not sufficient to conclude that there is a concluded contract between the parties, which contains an arbitration clause. Given the inconclusive nature of the finding by CFSL together with the signing of the agreement in Haryana by parties whose registered offices are at Bombay and Bihar qua works to be executed in Bihar; given the fact that the Notary who signed the agreement was not authorised to do so and various other conundrums that arise on the facts of this case, it is unsafe to conclude, one way or the other, that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The prima facie review spoken of in Vidya Dhrolia can lead to only one conclusion on the facts of this case - that a deeper consideration of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties must be left to an Arbitrator A B C D E F G H 1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R. who is to examine the documentary evidence produced before him in detail after witnesses are cross-examined on the same. For all these reasons, the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court is set aside in so far as it conclusively finds that there is an Arbitration Agreement between the parties. However, the ultimate order appointing a retired Delhi High Court Judge as a Sole Arbitrator is upheld. The Judge will first determine as a preliminary issue as to whether an Arbitration Agreement exists between the parties, and go on to decide the merits of the case only if it is first found that such an agreement exists. [Para 27][1198-B-F] Case Law Reference