Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Gaurav Agrawal, Debmalya Banerjee, Simran Brar, Rohan Sharma, Kartik Bhatnagar, Kiran Devrani, Apurva, Nitish Dham, Liza Vohra, Karanjawala and Co.
For the Respondents: Susheej Joseph Cyriac, Nirnimesh Dube, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Varun Kanwal, Tarun, Lex Regis Law Offices

How to determine if a non-signatory is a party to an arbitration agreement based on their conduct? What is the source of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal over a person/entity who is sought to be impleaded as a party? Does non-service of a Section 21 notice bar a party's impleadment in arbitration if they are bound by the arbitration agreement?

Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that non-service of a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not bar a party's impleadment in arbitration if they are bound by the arbitration agreement (!) (!) . - The court ruled that the source of an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction over a person is derived from their consent to the arbitration agreement, not from being a party to a Section 21 notice or a Section 11 application (!) (!) . - An application under Section 11 is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and does not conclusively determine who are the parties to the proceedings (!) (!) . - The arbitral tribunal has the power under Section 16 to determine its own jurisdiction, including whether a non-signatory is a party to the arbitration agreement based on factors like mutual intent and conduct (!) (!) . - Non-signatories can be impleaded in arbitration if their conduct indicates a mutual intent to be bound by the arbitration agreement, such as through their role in the performance of the contract (!) (!) . - In the present case, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were held to be parties to the arbitration agreement because their roles as the LLP and its CEO were derived from the LLP Agreement which contained the arbitration clause (!) (!) . - The court allowed the appeal and directed that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be impleaded in the arbitration proceedings (!) . - The court clarified that the purpose of a Section 21 notice is primarily to fix the date of commencement for limitation purposes, and its absence does not restrict the scope of claims or jurisdiction (!) (!) . - The court distinguished previous High Court decisions by emphasizing that the referral court under Section 11 only gives a prima facie finding, leaving the final determination of parties to the arbitral tribunal (!) (!) . - The judgment established that the proper inquiry under Section 16 is whether the person sought to be impleaded is a party to the arbitration agreement, rather than procedural technicalities regarding notices (!) (!) .

How to determine if a non-signatory is a party to an arbitration agreement based on their conduct?

What is the source of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal over a person/entity who is sought to be impleaded as a party?

Does non-service of a Section 21 notice bar a party's impleadment in arbitration if they are bound by the arbitration agreement?