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

The Signature That Never Was: A Tale of Forensic Truth and Legal Justice

 When Ink Tells a Different Story

In a busy commercial court, where large sums change hands on the strength of a signature, a peculiar dispute challenged everything about trust, evidence, and the art of proving authenticity. A lender claimed repayment via a bounced cheque bearing a borrower’s signature—yet the borrower insisted, “I never signed that cheque.”

The Mysterious Loan

Print Page

When Your Own Signature Becomes a Crime: Understanding Forgery Under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code

 A comprehensive analysis of how signing one's own name can constitute forgery under Indian criminal law

Introduction

In the realm of criminal law, forgery is traditionally understood as the act of falsifying someone else's signature or documents. However, the Indian Penal Code presents a fascinating and often misunderstood legal principle: a person can commit forgery by signing their own genuine name. This counterintuitive concept, enshrined in Section 464 {S 335 of BNS} Explanation 1 of the Indian Penal Code, challenges conventional understanding and highlights the sophisticated nature of Indian criminal jurisprudence.

The Legal Framework: Section 464 IPC Explained

Print Page

Kerala HC: Orders Issued U/S 73 Of CGST Act Must Carry Digital Or Physical Signature Of Officer In Order To Be Treated As Valid

 On consideration of the submissions advanced and the legal provisions, we are of the view that Section 160 of CGST Act 2017 is not attracted. An unsigned order cannot be covered under any mistake, defect or omission therein as used in Section 160. The said expression refers to any mistake, defect or omission in an order with respect to assessment, re-assessment; adjudication etc and which shall not be invalid or deemed to be invalid by such reason, if in substance and effect the assessment, reassessment etc is in conformity with the requirements of the Act or any existing law. These would not cover omission to sign the order. Unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law. Merely uploading of the unsigned order, may be by the Authority competent to pass the order, would, in our view, not cure the defect which goes to the very root of the matter i.e. validity of the order. {Para 7}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP (C) Nos. 20656/2024,

Decided On: 29.11.2024

Fortune Service and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Gopinath P., J.

Citation: MANU/KE/5023/2024.

Print Page

Whether a party must examine author of a document if he has not his signatures on that document?

  The High Court, in the impugned judgment erred in holding that the appellant had not examined the author of the documents. Such reasoning is absolutely erroneous as in the written statement, the respondents had not denied their signatures on the documents referred to by the appellant but pleaded duress in executing of these large number of documents. The witness examined by respondent no.1 in his cross examination admitted his signature or that of the representative of company on invoices, debit notes and on ST-1 Form. The respondent had led no evidence in respect of fraud or duress apart from self-serving statement. The consignment of goods was sent from the month of November 1985 to January 1986. The respondent had signed large number of documents during this period. However, no complaint was made to any person or authority or even to the plaintiff. It is a denial of receipt of goods without any basis raised only in the written statement filed. Such stand is wholly bereft of any truth and is thus rejected. {Para 20} 

Supreme Court

JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

M/S STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED Vs. M/S BEHARILAL MADANLAL JAIPURIA LTD. & ORS.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4102 OF 2013

16th December 2021

Author: HEMANT GUPTA, J.

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 788

Print Page

Whether presumption U/S 139 of NI Act is attracted if accused hands over blank signed cheque?

Once the 2nd Appellant had admitted his signatures on the

cheque and the Deed, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the

cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt. The

trial Court fell in error when it called upon the Complainant-

Respondent to explain the circumstances under which the appellants

were liable to pay. Such approach of the trial Court was directly in the teeth of the established legal position as discussed above, and amounts to a patent error of law.

18. Even if we take the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated. It is useful to cite Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197, ¶ 36., where this court held that:

“Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over

by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract

presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the

cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.”

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 123 of 2021

M/s. Kalamani Tex & Anr  Vs P. Balasubramanian 

Author: Surya Kant, J:

DATED :10.02.2021

Print Page

Whether service of notice can be proved by proving photocopies of acknowledgment card containing signature of other side?

 The learned Family Court Judge found that Ext. B2 talaq nama allegedly communicated to the petitioner by the respondent on 17.10.1988 has not been proved to be communicated to the petitioner for the reason that he could not produce the originals of the acknowledgment cards. Exts. B3 to B6 are the photocopies of the acknowledgment cards. The signature of the petitioner is very clearly seen in Ext. B3 photocopy and the signature of the petitioner's father is also seen in Ext. B4 copy of the acknowledgment card. RW4 the Secretary of the Thottathumpady Muslim Jama-ath, who is examined as RW4 admits his signature in Ext. B5 copy of acknowledgment card. Ext. B6 is the copy of acknowledgment card, which is signed by the Secretary of the Mannathala Juma-ath Committee, Chavakkad. Ext. B4 signed by the father of the petitioner has also issued Ext. A7 certificate as President of the Mannathala Juma-ath Committee. It is true that the respondent was not able to produce the originals of acknowledgment cards. He would testify that he had entrusted the documents in original to his Advocate in connection with conducting of M.C. No. 20/1999 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva and that the documents somehow got misplaced or lost. But the Advocate had the photocopies of the documents, which were produced for the purpose of this petition. The Advocate is examined as RW6 in support of this averment by the respondent. When an explanation is forthcoming regarding the non-availability of the primary evidence, secondary evidence could be accepted with explanations under Sections 63 and 65(c) of the Evidence Act, and according to us the explanation offered by the respondent as also his Advocate examined as RW6, would satisfy the reasons for producing photocopies of the acknowledgment cards. The rejection of those documents by the Family Court Judge does not appear to be proper.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Mat. Appeal No. 214 of 2006

Decided On: 08.07.2019

 P.U. Mohammed Basheer  Vs. N.P. Sulaikha

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Chitambaresh and Ashok Menon, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019(NOC) 752 Ker

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to compare signature on photostat copy with standard signature?

 Another reason for non-suiting of the plaintiff was that though the plaintiff had examined a document expert but since he had compared the alleged signatures of the defendant from the photostat copy with the standard signatures, the same could not be done. The relevant authorities in that regard cited by learned counsel for the parties have been discussed. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that no reliance can be placed upon the report of document expert since the signatures could not be compared from the photostat copy.

18. Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned here that under Order 7, Rule 14, CPC, the original documents in possession of the plaintiff ought to have been attached along with the plaint. However, strangely enough only photostat copies thereof were filed. The plaintiff would have been on better footing if the pronote and receipt were scribed by a regular Deed Writer with an entry being there in his register in the ordinary course of business containing signatures of the parties and those of attesting witnesses, then the chances of the pronote and receipt having been forged/fabricated would have been minimized but it is not so in the present case. There could be a possibility of the documents being fabricated, the signatures of defendant being lifted from any document containing his admitted signatures and placed on other documents by superimposition as has been observed in authority by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court i.e. Sh. Surjit Rai v. Sh. Prem Kumar Khera and Ors. MANU/PH/0297/1995 : 1995(2) PLR 140 and then suit filed on the basis thereof stating that the original had been lost.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

RSA No. 1122 of 2014 (O&M)

Decided On: 05.02.2019

 Gurdial Singh Vs.   Dalveer Kaur

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Harminder Singh Madaan, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 P&H 66

Print Page

Whether complaint for dishonour of cheque is maintainable without signature of complainant?

 In the light of the above discussion, taking note of various provisions of the Act and the Code which we have adverted above, we hold that the complaint under Section 138 of the Act without signature is maintainable when such complaint is verified by the complainant and the process is issued by the Magistrate after due verification. The prosecution of such complaint is maintainable.

Supreme Court of India

Indra Kumar Patodia & Anr. vs Reliance Inds. Ltd & Ors. on 22 November, 2012

Print Page

Whether disclosure statement of accused U/S 27 of evidence Act can be relied on if it does not bear signature of accused?

So far as the conscious possession of the weapon Ex. M/O/4 is concerned, the disclosure statement, Ex. P-9 inspires no confidence. Firstly because none of the two panch witnesses, Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI, have been examined at the trial and secondly because the disclosure statement does not bear the signatures or the thumb impression of the appellant. Even, the recovery memo of the revolver and the cartridges, Ex. P-9/A, which is also attested by Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI does not bear either the signatures or the thumb impression of the accused. The absence of the signatures or the thumb impression of an accused on the disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act detracts materially from the authenticity and the reliability of the disclosure statement. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 1985

Decided On: 20.04.1995

Jaskaran Singh Vs.  The State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. A.S. Anand and M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.

Print Page

Whether any document can be exhibited if its maker has admitted his signature even if contents of document is not proved?

In the case of Mrs. Cynthia Martin Wd/o A.V. Martin v/s. Prembehari s/o. Makhanlal Yadu & Another reported in MANU/MH/0074/1998 : 1998 (1) Bom. C.R. 631, it is observed in paragraph 12 that:-

By the said letter, it was informed by the competent authority that the house was not situated in the slum area. Shri De submitted that the only witness, who has been examined, has not been able to give any details regarding the said letter and mere proof of the signature would not amount to the proof of the contents of the letter. It is true that mere proof of the signature could not prove the contents of the letter. However, that is not a case here. The letter is clear enough, and once the letter is proved by proving the signature of the maker thereof, there would hardly be any reason to doubt the same regarding the veracity of the contents therein.

24. In the case of Grasim Industries Limited (supra), following observation made in paragraph 6:-

In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.

... Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document, Ext. D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake.

25. In the case of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (supra), the following observation was made:-

The learned trial Judge curiously declined to exhibit the document and marked it for identification s Ex. X/6 on the ground that even if the signature of the vendor on the document is proved, unless the contents are proved, the document cannot be admitted. We are afraid we cannot share the view of the learned trial Judge. The document stands proved as soon as the fact of execution is proved and it is wholly irrelevant whether the contents are proved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3190 of 2011 with Civil Application No. 956 of 2011

Decided On: 14.11.2011

Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta  Vs.  Vasantben Harvilas Jani

Print Page

Whether arbitration agreement not signed by parties is valid?

Reading the provisions it can safely be concluded that an arbitration agreement even though in writing need not be signed by the parties if the record of agreement is provided by exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication. Section 7(4)(c) provides there can be an arbitration agreement in the exchange of statements of claims and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other. If it can be prima facie shown that the parties are at ad idem, then mere fact of one party not signing the agreement cannot absolve himself from the liability under the agreement. In the present day of E-commerce, in cases of internet purchases, tele purchases, ticket booking on internet and in standard forms of contract, terms and conditions are agreed upon. In such agreements, if the identity of the parties is established, and there is a record of agreement it becomes an arbitration agreement if there is an arbitration clause showing ad idem between the parties. Therefore, signature is not a formal requirement Under Section 7(4)(b) or 7(4)(c) or under 7(5) of the Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 11438 of 2014 

Decided On: 16.12.2014

 Govind Rubber Ltd.  Vs.  Louids Dreyfus Commodities Asia P. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Yusuf Eqbal and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Citation: (2015) 13 SCC 477.

Print Page

Whether execution of document can be proved if only signature of person on document is proved?

Under Section 67 of the Evidence Act execution of document has to be proved, which denotes a conscious act of subscribing to a document. In order to prove the execution of a document it must be shown that the person executing it consciously subscribed to it in the sense that he put his mark or signature on it after having known and understood its contents. Mere proof that the person's signature appears on the document cannot, by itself, amount to execution of the document. It is also settled that if an illiterate person affixes his thumb mark to a document, the onus to prove that the document was properly explained to the person affixing his thumb mark so as to make him understand its true import is on the person relying on the document.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramjan Khan And Ors. vs Baba Raghunath Dass And Ors. on 5 December, 1990

Print Page

Whether director of company can be made accused in cheque dishonour case if cheque does not bear his signature?

 Now, turning towards the second point, it is to be noted that as regards accused nos. 02 to 12, only at two places, same statement has been made by the complainant, that they are the directors of accused no. 01, who are in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company. The complainant has not given what is the nomenclature and how each one of accused nos. 02 to 12 is in-charge. Admittedly, accused nos. 02 to 12 are not the signatories to the disputed cheques. In fact, in para no. 05 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that accused nos. 01 to 12 issued a cheque ..... None of them i.e. accused nos. 02 to 12 had issued that cheque but somebody else is the signatory to the cheque. This fact is also suppressed by the complainant. The learned Magistrate ought to have considered as to who is the signatory to the cheque and whether he is made an accused or not before proceeding to issue process against accused nos. 02 to 12.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 2052 and 2055 of 2018

Decided On: 31.08.2018

 Rajeev Raj Kumar  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 628

Print Page

Whether registered sale deed can be discarded on ground that it does not bear signature of vendor where his name is written?

 An interesting question arises in this appeal is, as to whether a registered sale deed which does not bear signature of the vendor at the place where his name is written as the vendor, but bears his signatures in places where corrections are made in the text of the sale deed and it also bears signature on the reverse of the last page along with his thumb impression, acknowledging receipt of balance consideration, before the Registrar, can be said to be a valid sale deed or it has to be discarded only because signature of the vendor is absent at the place where his name is written as the vendor.

 In the light of the aforesaid position of law, it becomes clear that mere absence of signature of respondent No. 1 at one place in the aforesaid registered sale deed dated 25.01.1999, cannot become the basis for the respondent No. 1 to claim that such sale deed was never executed. The aforesaid question of fact regarding execution of the registered sale deed has to be ascertained on the basis of evidence on record. In the present case, the evidence on record is in the form of both attesting witnesses and the scribe appearing before the Court and deposing in favour of execution of the aforesaid registered sale deed by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellant. There is record of the Registrar's Office and facts have come on record showing that the respondent No. 1 is a well educated person and not an illiterate person who was taken for a ride by the appellant and misled into execution of a document which the respondent No. 1 never intended to execute. The appellate Court has erred in proceeding on the basis that the appellant ought to have proved that the signatures and thumb impression on the aforesaid registered sale deed were that of the respondent No. 1, when it was the respondent No. 1 who was denying his signatures and thumb impression on the registered document. Being the plaintiff, the burden was on respondent No. 1 to prove that the signature and thumb impression on the sale deed were not his, particularly because it was a registered document. It is also a fact that the respondent No. 1 never filed any police complaint in respect of his signatures having been allegedly forged on the registered sale deed dated 25.01.1999, which is also a relevant factor in the present case. The appellant examined both the attesting witnesses and scribe to prove that the respondent No. 1 indeed executed the registered sale deed on 25.01.1999 in the Registrar's Office. The appellate Court has held that emphasis placed by the trial Court on admission of respondent No. 1 about oral agreement to sale, was misplaced. But, this conclusion of the Appellate Court is also erroneous because the admission of oral agreement on the part of the respondent No. 1 did indicate that the parties were in the process of executing the aforesaid registered sale deed pertaining to the suit property. Even if the appellate Court found that the agreement dated 23.01.1998 was a suspicious document, admission of respondent No. 1 that there was an oral agreement did assume significance in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 55 of 2016

Decided On: 10.04.2018

 Ramesh Vs.  Ratnakar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018( 5) MHLJ 132

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to prove contents of documents 30 years old?

Presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act in respect of 30 years' old document coming from proper custody relates to the signature, execution and attestation of a document i.e. to its genuineness but it does not give rise to presumption of correctness of every statement contained in it. The contents of the document are true or it had been acted upon have to be proved like any other fact. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1374 of 2008

Decided On: 17.07.2012

 Union of India (UOI) Vs.  Ibrahim Uddin and Ors.

Print Page

Whether criminal complaint for dishonour of cheque without signature is maintainable?

 From the rival contentions, the only question for consideration before this Court is that whether the complaint without signature of the complainant under Section 138 of the Act is maintainable when such complaint is verified by the complainant and the process is issued by the Magistrate after verification.

The General Clauses Act, 1897 too draws a distinction between writing and signature and defines them separately. Section 3(56) defines signature and Section 3(65) defines writing which reads thus:

“In this Act, and in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

56. "Sign" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall, with reference to a person who is unable to write his name, include, "mark", with its grammatical variation and cognate expressions,

65. Expressions referring to "writing" shall be construed as including references to printing, lithography, photography and other modes of representing or reproducing words in a visible form,” Writing as defined by General Clauses Act requires that the same is representation or reproduction of “words” in a visible form and does not require signature. “Signature” within the meaning of “writing” would be adding words to the section which the legislature did not contemplate.

15) In the case on hand, the complaint was presented in person on June 3, 1998 and on the direction by the Magistrate, the complaint was verified on July 30, 1998 and duly signed by the authorized officer of the Company-the complainant. As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench, no prejudice has been caused to the accused for non-signing the complaint. The statement made on oath and signed by the complainant safeguards the interest of the accused. In view of the same, we hold that the requirements of Section 142(a) of the Act is that the complaint must necessarily be in writing and the complaint can be presented by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque and it need not be signed by the complainant. In other words, if the legislature intended that the complaint under the Act, apart from being in writing, is also required to be signed by the complainant, the legislature would have used different language and inserted the same at the appropriate place. In our opinion, the correct interpretation would be that the complaint under Section 142(a) of the Act requires to be in writing as at the time of taking cognizance, the Magistrate will examine the complainant on oath and the verification statement will be signed by the complainant.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Indra Kumar Patodia & Anr vs Reliance Inds. Ltd & Ors on 22 November, 2012

Bench: P. Sathasivam, Ranjan Gogoi

Print Page

Whether valid tenancy can be created if lease deed does not bear signature of lessor?

So far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner
regarding the need of signature of the lessor on the deed of
kirayanama for creation of a valid tenancy is concerned, the law has
been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Pratap Singh
Vs. Rameshwar Prasad, 1998 (7) SCC 602 that merely because the
document shows only the signature of one of the parties, it is not
enough to conclude that the non-signing party has not joined in the
execution of the instrument. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Revision No.1861 of 2009

 Sudhir Kumar  Vs  Sri Uma Shankar Pd. Gupta.

CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE V. NATH

Date: 20-07-2017
Citation: AIR 2017(NOC) 926 Pat

Print Page

Whether contract can be rescinded if contractor fails to sign contract personally?

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised
the paper book and of the view that there is no merit and force in the
submission of Ms.Pathak, for, the Arbitrator categorically recorded a
finding with regard to tendering of documents at the behest of the
respondent-contractor. The officials of the Corporation should not have
been right in calling upon the contractor to sign the agreement as he was
in custody and, therefore, had executed GPOA and assignment of right of
a principal to the agent is recognised in law and once the Corporation
failed to honour the contract and insisted upon the presence of the
contractor for signing the agreement, there was no occasion for them to
cancel the contract. The intention of the contractor is evident from the
deposit of the security deposit. It is the conceded position on record that
respondent No.1 was in judicial custody w.e.f. 1.9.2002 and on
6.11.2002, the appellant issued notice to respondent No.1 to sign the

agreement in person by 17.11.2002, failing which the contract shall be
rescinded at his risk and cost and earnest money shall also be forfeited.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.No.6853 of 2010 (O&M)
Dated: August 01, 2016
Central Ware Housing Corporation, Panchkula

V
M/s Jaswinder Singh,
CORAM:  AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)675 P&H

Print Page

Whether family settlement will be binding on members of family even if it is not signed one of parties?

 We agree with the proposition that a

family settlement is binding on the members of the

family even if one of the parties have not subscribed

his signature to the deed.               But there should be

clinching evidence to show that the party who is not a

signatory to the deed has acquiesced in the settlement

by his subsequent conduct. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT:

                  MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
                                        &
                    MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

        30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016
                             AS.No. 86 of 2001 

           SOSAMMA OOMMAN, 
Vs

         ANNAMMA SIMON, 

                                              

Print Page