Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Ajay Madhusudan Patel and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Jyotrindra S. Patel and Others – Respondents
Arbitration Petition No. 19 of 2024
Decided On : 20-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:
| INDEX | |
| (A) | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| (B) | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (AMP GROUP) |
| (C) | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT (JRS GROUP) |
| (D) | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT (SRG GROUP) |
| (E) | ANALYSIS |
| (i) Scope of jurisdiction of the referral court under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 | |
| (ii) Whether on a prima facie view, the SRG Group being a non-signatory to the FAA, can be referred to arbitration? | |
| (F) | CONCLUSION |
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, “the Act, 1996”) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the Petitioners and the Respondents in terms of Clauses 7.2 and 7.3 respectively of the Family Arrangement Agreement dated 28.02.2020 (hereinafter, “the FAA”) read with the Amendment Agreement dated 15.05.2020 (hereinafter “Amendment to the FAA”) entered into between the petitioner AMP Group and respondent JRS Group.
2. Since the Petitioner No. 13 i.e. Silvercity Management Ltd. is a company incorporated outside India having its office at 17, Bond Street, St. Helier, Jersey, JE2, 3NP, an island in the English Channel, northwest of France and the Petitioner No. 14 i.e. Hiral Ashit Patel is an individual, who is a citizen and resident of Canada, the dispute between the Parties falls within the definition of an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act, 1996.
(A) FACTUAL MATRIX
3. For convenience, the Parties involved in the present petition and the respective groups of which they form a part of are tabulated below:
| S. No. | Name | Petitioner/Respondent | Group |
| 1. | Ajay Madhusudan Patel | Petitioner No. 1 | AMP |
| 2. | Apoorva Madhusudan Patel | Petitioner No. 2 | AMP |
| 3. | Meeta Ajay Patel | Petitioner No. 3 | AMP |
| 4. | Sonal Apoorva Patel | Petitioner No. 4 | AMP |
| 5. | Bhavik Ajay Patel | Petitioner No. 5 | AMP |
| 6. | Jinal Ajay Patel | Petitioner No. 6 | AMP |
| 7. | Kaushal Apoorva Patel | Petitioner No. 7 | AMP |
| 8. | Nishkal Apoorva Patel | Petitioner No. 8 | AMP |
| 9. | Apoorva M. Patel (HUF) | Petitioner No. 9 | AMP |
| 10. | Spectrum Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director | Petitioner No. 10 | AMP |
| 11. | Sai Fragrances & Flavours Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director | Petitioner No. 11 | AMP |
| 12. | Zest Aromas Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director | Petitioner No. 12 | AMP |
| 13. | Silvercity Management Ltd. Rep. by its Chairman | Petitioner No. 13 | AMP |
| 14. | Hiral Ashit Patel | Petitioner No. 14 | AMP |
| 15. | Jyotrindra S. Patel | Respondent No. 1 | JRS |
| 16. | Rajesh C. Patel HUF | Respondent No. 2 | JRS |
| 17. | Sanjay S. Patel | Respondent No. 3 | JRS |
| 18. | Finhelp Investments and Consultants (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director | Respondent No. 4 | JRS |
| 19. | Greenbiz Holdings and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director | Respondent No. 5 | JRS |
| 20. | Jyotrindra S. Patel and Sanjay S. Patel (Holding for and on behalf of J&S Associate - AOP) Rep. by its Member | Respondent No. 6 | JRS |
| 21. | Millenium Estates Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director | Respondent No. 7 | SRG |
| 22. | Deegee Software Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director | Respondent No. 8 | SRG |
| 23. | Samarjitsinh R. Gaekwad (Shareholder & Director of Millenium Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Deegee Software Pvt. Ltd.) | Respondent No. 9 | SRG |
| 24. | Radhikaraje S. Gaekwad (Shareholder of Deegee Software Pvt. Ltd.) | Respondent No. 10 | SRG |
| 25. | Subhanginiraje R. Gaekwad (Shareholder of Deegee Software Pvt. Ltd.) | Respondent No. 11 | SRG |
| 26. | Gaekwad Services Ltd. now known as Gaekwad Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Directo | ||
The court ruled that non-signatories may be bound by arbitration agreements if their conduct indicates consent, but complex factual questions regarding such consent should be resolved by the Arbitral....
Dissenting non-signatory member of cooperative society not bound by arbitration clause in development agreement with developer; lacks consent as veritable party despite beneficiary status or executin....
The Group of Companies doctrine allows binding non-signatories to arbitration agreements based on mutual intent, assessed through their conduct and involvement in the contractual relationship, withou....
The court reinforced the principle that arbitration agreements must be enforced and that jurisdictional issues regarding non-signatories should be resolved by arbitral tribunals, aligning with preced....
Appointment of Arbitrator – Arbitral Tribunal is preferred first authority to look into questions of arbitrability and jurisdiction, and courts at referral stage should not venture into contested que....
Non-signatories can be bound by arbitration agreements based on their conduct and involvement in the contractual relationship.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
