Can an Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sit in judgment over its own foundation where the arbitration agreement is itself seriously and credibly impeached?

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S.11(6) — Appointment of arbitrator — Existence of arbitration agreement — Arbitration clause introduced by a separate letter — Allegation of fraud and forgery — Non-arbitrability — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S.11(6) — Arbitration clause embedded in a disputed document — Consent as the foundation of arbitration — Held: Arbitration is the child of consent. Where the arbitration clause does not exist independently but is embedded in a document whose genuineness is seriously disputed as a product of fraud or forgery, the dispute assumes a jurisdictional dimension and is non-arbitrable at the threshold, and no arbitrator can be appointed under s.11(6). Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee, (2026) 7 SCC 631, followed. (¶8, 9, 10, 11) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Competence of the Arbitral Tribunal — Challenge to the foundation of the arbitration agreement — Held further: A Tribunal draws its authority from the arbitration agreement and cannot be asked to sit in judgment over its own foundation where that foundation is itself seriously and credibly impeached. Petition dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies. (¶12, 13)