Key Points: - The arbitral tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim against a third party for a private transaction not governed by the arbitration clause. [4000662320095] - There is misjoinder of parties in the arbitration under Bye-law 248(a), where claims arise from private transactions not on the floor of the exchange. [4000662320093] - For third-party impleadment, arbitration under Bye-law 248(a) requires disputes between specified parties arising from dealings on the floor of the Exchange; consent alone cannot confer jurisdiction over a non-party to the arbitration agreement. [4000662320075][4000662320061] - Bye-law 248(a) restricts arbitrable disputes to those arising from dealings, transactions, and contracts made subject to Exchange rules; private transactions fall outside unless covered by the applicable arbitration clause. [4000662320060][4000662320063] - The award against a third party for a private transaction not covered by the arbitration clause constitutes lack of inherent jurisdiction. [4000662320091]

How to determine whether an arbitral tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim against a third party arising from a private transaction not governed by an arbitration clause?

What is the effect of misjoinder of parties in an arbitration under Bye-law 248(a) of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai?

What are the conditions under which a third party can be impleaded as a respondent in statutory arbitration under Bye-law 248(a) and when is consent of the parties insufficient to confer jurisdiction?