When the Signature Becomes the Case: Delhi High Court on Proof of Contract, Defective Notarisation and the Limits of Section 34 of Arbitration Act

In arbitration, a claim founded on a disputed contract cannot survive unless the contract itself is first proved. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. reaffirms that principle with clarity and commercial realism.

Introduction

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd., decided on 11.03.2026, is an important ruling on contract formation, proof of execution, arbitral jurisdiction and the narrow limits of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment underscores a basic but often neglected truth of commercial litigation: where the very agreement containing the arbitration clause is not proved to have been executed, the arbitral claim may fail at the threshold itself.

Print Page

Drafts, Doubt and Defective Notarisation: The Fall of an Arbitral Claim

 The arbitrator held that the CA was not executed between the parties and signatures thereupon of Mr. M.G. Stephen were forged. It was considered that: (a) the parties to the agreement belonged to Bihar and Mumbai, whereas the CA was notarised in Faridabad; (b) the Managing Director of the petitioner while deposing as CW-1 admitted that none of the parties had business place in Faridabad and no negotiation took place there; (c) the CA was notarised by Mr. Vinay Kumbta who as per the testimony of CW-1 was a business partner residing in Faridabad but in cross-examination it was stated that he was an employee and had only the role of accessing emails received; (d) the license of the notary notarising the CA had expired; (e) the petitioner failed to examine the witnesses to the CA or the notary; and (f) by email dated 15.07.2014 that is eight days after the date on which the petitioner claimed execution of the CA, a draft of the agreement was circulated. {Para 8}

Ratio: 

Where execution of the contract containing the arbitration clause is specifically denied, the party relying on the contract bears the initial burden of proving execution; defective notarisation, including notarisation by a notary with an expired licence, may not by itself void the contract but can substantially weaken the evidentiary value of the document; and where the arbitrator’s finding that execution is not proved is a plausible one on the record, the award is not liable to be set aside under Section 34.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

O.M.P. (Comm) 463/2023

Decided On: 11.03.2026

Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt Ltd. Vs. Pravin Electricals Pvt Ltd

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

Citation:  MANU/DE/1679/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: When a person ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community upon his conversion to Christianity, he cannot subsequently invoke provisions of SC/ST(Atrocities) Act

A. Offences alleged under the SC/ST Act

60) At the very outset, it must be unequivocally stated that the offences registered under the SC/ST Act against respondent nos. 2 to 7 at the instance of the appellant cannot be sustained. Having already held that the appellant ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community upon his conversion to Christianity, he cannot subsequently invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The said statute is a special legislation enacted with the avowed object of preventing atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and once the foundational requirement of caste status stands extinguished, the statutory protection thereunder is no longer available.

61) Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was right in holding that the appellant has ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste on his conversion to Christianity. Accordingly, the appellant cannot be a person aggrieved under the SC/ST Act.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1580 OF 2026

CHINTHADA ANAND  Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Author: PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Citation:  2026 INSC 283.

Dated: MARCH 24, 2026.

Print Page

Organised Crime under BNS and MCOCA: Common Core, Different Reach

 The easiest way to remember organised crime under BNS and MCOCA is this: both laws do not punish a single stray offence; they target a continuing criminal enterprise connected with a syndicate. In both, the prosecution must show repeated serious unlawful activity, nexus with an organised crime syndicate, prior charge-sheets within ten years, and use of unlawful means for unlawful gain or advantage.

 BNS has largely borrowed the structural idea from MCOCA, but BNS makes it part of the general penal law and gives a broader illustrative list of organised crimes. MCOCA remains a special, stricter State law model, while BNS is wider in catalogue and also separately recognizes petty organised crime under Section 112.

Print Page