J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
ASF Buildtech Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited – Respondent
What is the power of an Arbitral Tribunal to implead or join a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement as a party to arbitration proceedings?
Key Points: - An Arbitral Tribunal has the power to implead or join a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement as a party to arbitration proceedings (!) . - The archaic understanding that an Arbitral Tribunal is incapable of identifying and impleading a non-signatory on its own accord is not the correct position of law (!) . - Both courts and tribunals are empowered to decide issues of impleadment of a non-signatory, with Arbitral Tribunals being the preferred forum (!) . - The jurisdiction of an Arbitral Tribunal is founded on the arbitration agreement, not merely the subjective intent of parties (!) . - The doctrine of competence-competence, enshrined in Section 16 of the Act, empowers Arbitral Tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction, including the determination of parties to an arbitration agreement (!) (!) . - Mere incidental involvement in contract negotiation or performance is insufficient to infer a non-signatory's consent to be bound by an arbitration agreement (!) . - The determination of whether a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement is a factual inquiry requiring a holistic assessment of various factors (!) (!) . - The non-service of a notice of invocation under Section 21 of the Act does not nullify an Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction over a party who can be impleaded (!) . - The High Court's decision affirming the Arbitral Tribunal's order to implead non-signatories was upheld, finding no error of law (!) . - Procedural issues regarding the impleadment of parties continue to plague the arbitration regime in India, and legislative changes are urged (!) .
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -
| INDEX | |
| A. | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| B. | SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES |
| i. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant | |
| ii. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 | |
| C. | ANALYSIS |
| i. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to Implead / Join Non- Signatories to the Arbitration Agreement? | |
| a. Contradictory Views of different High Courts on the subject | |
| I. Decisions holding that the Arbitral Tribunal does not have the power to Implead a non-signatory to the Arbitration Agreement | |
| II. Decisions holding that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to Implead a non-signatory to the Arbitration Agreement | |
| b. Evolution of the law on referral or joinder of Non-Signatories to arbitration proceedings and the Aversion to the power of Arbitral Tribunals to implead a Non-Signatory | |
| I. Decision of Chloro Controls and the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 | |
| II. Decision of Cox and Kings (I) and the Judicial Rectification of the first misconception by Chloro Controls | |
| III. Decision of | |
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 42 [Para 9
Chrolo Controls India Private Ltd. V. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.
Shin Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 234 [Para 24
Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd.
SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618 [Para 34, 55
Shree Ram Mills Ltd. v. Utility Premises (P) Ltd.
Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd.
Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd.
Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. v. Northern Coal Field Ltd.
Vidya Drolia & Ors v. Durga Trading Corporation
DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Rajapura Homes (P) Ltd.
BSNL v. Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd.
SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning
M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/s Aptech Ltd.
Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors.
Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Milkfood Ltd. v. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd.
State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises
Govind Rubber Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia (P) Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.