Impleadment of non-signatories in arbitration proceedings is impermissible unless a direct contractual relationship exists, underscoring the importance of party autonomy.

JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

O.A. 42/2026 (Seeking setting aside of the order dt. 23.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Joint Registrar (Judicial)) in ARB.P. 1787/2025

O.A. 41/2026 (Seeking setting aside of the order dt. 23.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Joint Registrar (Judicial)) in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 447/2025

O.A. 40/2026 (Seeking setting aside of the order dt. 23.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Joint Registrar (Judicial)) in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 484/2025

1. The present Chamber Appeals, being O.A. 42/2026, O.A. 41/2026 and O.A. 40/2026, have been preferred under Rule 5, Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The prayers in all the aforesaid Chamber Appeals are similarly worded and, in substance, assail the separate Orders dated 23.01.2025, Impugned Order(s) passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, Joint Registrar, whereby I.A. 30458/2025, I.A. 30390/2025 and I.A. 29997/2025 were allowed, resulting in the impleadment of the Applicant therein, namely Indian Institute of Management, Jammu, IIM Jammu, as a party to the proceedings under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act

3. It is an undisputed position that the underlying reasoning adopted by the learned Joint Registrar in the separate Impugned Orders, while allowing the respective IAs for adjudication, is substantially identical.

4. Since the present batch of matters arises out of Orders of a similar nature and raises common issues for consideration, for the sake of convenience, brevity, and consistency, reference shall hereinafter be made to the facts and particulars in O.A. 42/2026 in ARB.P. 1787/2025, unless the context otherwise requires.

5. The challenge before this Court is founded on the premise that no privity of contract exists between IIM Jammu and the Petitioner herein.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that although IIM Jammu may be the principal entity, it is the Central Public Works Department, CPWD that issued the tender in question, pursuant to which the tender agreement came to be executed exclusively between the Petitioner and CPWD. It is, therefore, urged that no contractual privity exists between the Petitioner and IIM Jammu so as to warrant its impleadment in the present proceedings.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of IIM Jammu, which stands impleaded by virtue of the Impugned Order, submits that IIM Jammu constitutes a necessary and proper party to the present Petition.

8. It is submitted that IIM Jammu is the principal entity in relation to the project and that all payments towards the works executed by the Petitioner emanate from IIM Jammu.

9. Learned Counsel for the IIM Jammu further submits that IIM Jammu remains the ultimate beneficiary of the works executed and plays a substantive role in the decision-making process governing the execution of the project.

10. In support of the aforesaid contentions, attention of this Court is drawn to the minutes of various meetings, which reflect that the said meetings were chaired by the Director of IIM Jammu, thereby seeking to demonstrate that a predominant role was played by IIM Jammu in the overall execution of the project justifying its impleadment in the present proceedings.

11. Reliance is also placed by