What happens when a party wins an interim order in arbitration proceedings on the strength of documents later found to be forged? On 16 September 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora of the High Court of Delhi answered the jurisdictional half of that question in Vipsie Hospitalitys Pvt Ltd v. Walianet, CM(M) 1573/2023: the application under Section 340 CrPC — the gateway to prosecution for offences against the administration of justice — belongs before the court now seized of the challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and must be decided on its merits within three months.
The procedural history
The holding
The Court treated the arbitral proceedings and their judicial supervision as a continuum. The liberty earlier granted — to seek perjury proceedings after the arbitration concluded — had been "correctly initiated" by filing the Section 340 application before the court seized of the Section 34 petition. That court was therefore directed to hear and adjudicate the application on merits within three months. The judgment knits together Sections 9, 11, 34 and 42 of the 1996 Act with the criminal-procedure gateway, giving practitioners a clear procedural map where forged documents surface mid-arbitration.
Why the sequencing matters
Three institutional interests are balanced by the approach taken here. First, the arbitral tribunal\'s primacy over questions of fact within the reference — including the authenticity of documents relied upon — is preserved; the court did not run a parallel forgery trial while the arbitration was alive. Second, the deterrent force of Section 340 is preserved: a party cannot launder forged documents through a Section 9 petition and then contend that no court retains jurisdiction over the deception once the interim proceedings end. Third, Section 42 of the Act — which anchors all subsequent applications arising out of the arbitration agreement in the court first approached — keeps the perjury question in the same judicial stream as the award challenge, avoiding forum fragmentation.
Practical guidance for parties confronting forged documents
| Stage | Step |
|---|---|
| When the document first appears in court proceedings | Object on the record immediately and file the Section 340 application then — delay invites an inference of afterthought. Expect deferral if the tribunal is yet to rule on authenticity. |
| Before the tribunal | Plead the forgery squarely, seek discovery of originals, and press for specific findings — a tribunal finding of forgery or suspicion becomes the backbone of every later step. |
| After the award | Renew the Section 340 application before the Section 34 court; deploy the findings in the challenge itself where fraud infects the award or the interim relief obtained. |
The practice point
For proceedings governed by the new criminal codes, the Section 340 CrPC mechanism corresponds to Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023, and the offences to the forgery and false-evidence provisions of the BNS, 2023. The architecture, however, is unchanged — and so is the lesson of this case: record the objection early, obtain the finding from the forum that owns the facts, and bring the criminal question home to the court supervising the arbitration.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Section 340 CrPC application?
It is the procedure by which a court examines whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into an offence affecting the administration of justice — such as forgery of a document produced in a proceeding, or false evidence — and, if so, to make a complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Private prosecution for such offences committed in relation to court proceedings ordinarily requires this gateway.
What was the sequence of events in this case?
The respondent obtained an interim restraint in Section 9 proceedings in February 2019 relying on two letters dated 18 December 2018 and 15 January 2019. The petitioner alleged forgery and filed a Section 340 application within days. The court deferred it, holding the authenticity of the documents was for the arbitral tribunal to determine. The tribunal's award of 18 June 2022 found the documents highly doubtful and suspect, and the petitioner renewed the Section 340 application in its Section 34 challenge.
Which court decides the perjury application?
The High Court held that the court hearing the Section 34 petition — here, OMP(COMM) 24/2023 — has jurisdiction to adjudicate the Section 340 application concerning documents deployed in the earlier Section 9 proceedings, and directed it to decide the application on merits within three months. The renewed application after conclusion of the arbitration was "correctly initiated" before that court.
Can forgery findings affect the award itself?
Yes, in defined ways. Fraud in obtaining an award can ground a challenge under Section 34 (conflict with the public policy of India, which includes awards induced or affected by fraud), and forgery findings can also support recall of interim orders and claims for restitution. The criminal consequence, however, travels through the Section 340 route rather than the arbitral proceedings.