effected a sale of seized vehicle to the 5th respondent by again forging documents for purporting to contain his signatures. Since the validity of the documents on the basis of which the petitioner/financier was asserting its right, the Court in the application filed under Section 8 of the Act referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Rathakrishan v. M/s Maestro Engineers & Ors. 2009(3) ACJ 643 dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court was considering a case relating to an objection taken by the defendant that a suit relating to partnership was not competent and that it should be referred to the Arbitrator being a dispute covered under the partnership deed through an arbitrator clause. The contention that fell for consideration was whether the appellant/defendant had been driven out by forging the accounts of the firm and that the alleged retirement from partnership said to have been signed by the appellant was brought by forged instrument or not. After setting aside the finding of the trial Court and the High Court that it was not an arbitral dispute, the Supreme Court considered the point of whether it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the Arbitrator in a case where serious allegations of fraud and forgery were attributed to the parties, who had sought for relief in the suit. The Supreme Court observed that with serious doubt about the genuineness of the document, it would not be appropriate to have the matter to be dealt with by
