2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J
Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited – Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 88/2026 | I.A. 11046/2026 | I.A. 11015/2026 | I.A. 11047/2026 | I.A. 6052/2026 | I.A. 6053/2026

Proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are restricted exclusively to parties to the arbitration agreement. Third parties lack the standing to intervene or be impleaded, as these proceedings are summary and designed solely to provide interim protective measures between the contracting parties.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2(h) and 9 - Interim measures - Scope and ambit - Third party seeking impleadment - Whether permissible - Held, proceedings under Section 9 are strictly intended for parties to an arbitration agreement - Statutory framework is anchored to disputes between such parties - A third party, not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, who does not trace any enforceable right through it, cannot be permitted to intervene or be impleaded in such proceedings - Permitting such intervention would defeat the summary, urgent character of Section 9 and lead to the adjudication of private commercial claims, which is outside the object of the statute. (Paras 18, 20, 26, 47)

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 8A - Applicability to arbitration proceedings - Held, this provision is meant for persons assisting the Court on questions of law in public interest - Cannot be used to facilitate the adjudication of private, factual, or proprietary claims, particularly in proceedings where the scope is inherently limited by a special statute. (Paras 49, 50)

Facts of the case:
An application was filed by a third party seeking impleadment in a petition instituted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The applicant claimed to be a secured creditor of one of the respondents and asserted that an existing interim order in the petition adversely affected its security interests and proprietary rights under a separate contractual arrangement. The applicant sought to be made a party to the proceedings to protect these interests.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the legislative architecture of the statute is founded upon the principle of party autonomy and is limited to parties to the arbitration agreement. Allowing third-party interventions would fundamentally alter the summary nature of the proceedings, encouraging collateral litigation and expansion of core jurisdiction, which is impermissible.

Issues: The primary issues were whether a non-signatory third party has the locus standi to be impleaded in Section 9 proceedings to defend its independent commercial interests and whether the procedural provisions of the civil code can be invoked to expand the scope of arbitration-related interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under Section 9 of the Act are ancillary and preservative in nature, meant solely for parties to an arbitration agreement. Since the definition of 'party' under Section 2(h) is limited, and the Act is a special law, third parties cannot transform these proceedings into a forum for settling independent or competing claims, as this would violate the established legislative intent and the summary procedural framework of the act.

Result: Application for impleadment and connected applications dismissed.