A non-signatory can be joined to arbitration as a 'veritable party' only upon meeting thresholds of de facto consent, such as common ownership, alter ego status, or involvement in a composite transaction. A subsequent, independent contractor does not attain this status solely through shared subject matter.

Oral Judgement:

Context and Factual Background:

1. This is an Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking appointment of an arbitral tribunal in connection with disputes and differences that would be relatable to an arbitration clause contained in a Development Agreement dated October 15, 2010 (“Development Agreement”) between the Applicant, Mukesh Patel (“Patel”) and Respondent No. 1, Pant Nagar Ganesh Krupa Cooperative Housing Society Limited (“Earlier Society”).

2. The Society has admittedly been merged, among others, into Respondent No. 3, Shubham Ambience Co-Operative Housing Society Limited (“Merged Society”), and therefore, the privity, if any, of the Development Agreement is now between Patel and the Merged Society.

3. Ordinarily, a matter of this nature, would not necessitate writing of a reasoned judgement, inasmuch as it is an application under Section 11 connected to an admittedly existent arbitration agreement. However, it is the insistence of Patel that Respondent No. 2, Avvad Spaces LLP (“Avvad”), another developer who has since been appointed as a developer for redevelopment of the property, after the termination of the Development Agreement, is a veritable party to the arbitration proceedings under the Development Agreement. This insistence is strongly opposed by Avvad, dealing with every strand of submissions made by Patel. Pleadings have been permitted and that warrants dealing with the legal issues raised by Patel and countered by Avvad.

4. The Development Agreement had been terminated way back on February 8, 2019, pursuant to a resolution passed by the members of the Society on December 15, 2018. Patel asserts that despite such termination, the Development Agreement subsists. Towards this end, Patel would contend that some members of the Society continued to receive transit rent under the Development Agreement.

5. Well after the termination effected , much water has flown , including a public advertisement for appointment of Avvad as a Developer with the appointment purported to have been made five years later, on November 8, 2022. That appointment is said to have been ratified by a Special General Body Meeting held on February 19, 2023.

6. Disputes and differences under the Development Agreement are sought to be agitated in arbitration but by including Avvad as a veritable party in the arbitration proceedings, seeking to invoke known principles of law governing participation by non-signatory parties in arbitration proceedings.

7. Patel indeed filed a Petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking interlocutory protection against the termination of the Development Agreement. While the termination had been effected in February 2019, the Section 9 Petition was filed on March 9, 2023, four years after the event. That Petition too came to be dismissed for non-removal of office objections. An application for restoration is said to have been filed and the same pending on the docket of this Court, although for the past nine months, praecipes requesting circulation of restoration applications are routinely listed within days of the request being made.

Contentions of the Parties:

8. I have heard Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Learned Advocate for Patel, Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir, Learned Senior Advocate for the Merged Society and Mr. Dinyar Madan, Learned Senior Advocate for