As per case facts, a dispute arose between the Appellant and Respondent concerning an Agreement to Sell an immovable property. The Appellant claimed the agreement was forged and represented a ... loan transaction, not a sale. An Arbitral Tribunal allowed specific performance, rejecting the Appellant's contentions. The Appellant challenged this award under Section 34 of the A&C Act, 1996, but the Single Judge dismissed the petition. The Appellant then filed an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act, 1996, arguing the agreement was forged, involved serious fraud, and therefore the dispute was non-arbitrable. The question arose whether the Single Judge erred in upholding the Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide the forgery claims and its finding that the transaction was a sale. Finally, the Court found no patent illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Arbitral Tribunal and the Single Judge. It affirmed that allegations of fraud or forgery do not ipso facto render a dispute non-arbitrable, particularly when the arbitration agreement itself is not independently assailed. The Court upheld the findings that the transaction was a sale and the signatures were genuine, dismissing the appeal as it sought re-appreciation of evidence beyond the scope of Section 37.