Skip to main content

Only party to arbitration agreement can be part of arbitration proceeding

Petitioner who is not a party to agreement containing an arbitration clause cannot be party to arbitration proceedings between the parties to arbitration agreement

The grievance projected by the Petitioner in Trust House Constructions Vs. State of J&K and Ors. - the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir is that, while the arbitration proceedings between Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were going on before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Petitioner who was vitally interested in the aforesaid proceedings having executed the balance work on behalf of Respondent No. 4, moved an application before the Arbitral Tribunal seeking its impleadment, but its application was turned down by the Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 24.10.2009, impugned in this petition. The Petitioner assails the order impugned primarily on the ground that, the Petitioner has a vital interest in the arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitral Tribunal and its presence in the arbitration proceedings would facilitate effective adjudication of the lis before the Arbitral Tribunal. 

Admittedly, the work in question was allotted by Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 4 and there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. The subject matter of adjudication before the Arbitrator is with respect to the contract executed between Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 4. It is this contract which contains arbitration clause for adjudicating upon the disputes between the parties to the contract. The Arbitral Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the application of the Petitioner for impleadment/intervention in arbitration proceedings is not maintainable. The mandate of Arbitral Tribunal is only to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties to the arbitration agreement which arise out of the contract agreement containing the arbitration clause, executed between the parties. The Petitioner may have an independent claim against Respondent No. 4 for which it needs to work out its remedies but surely it has no locus to be party in the arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitral Tribunal between Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 who alone are the parties to the arbitration agreement. 

The question as to party to the arbitration proceedings was examined by the Supreme Court, though in the context of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the case of Indowind Energy Ltd. v. Wescare (I) Ltd. and Anr. On the analogy of the aforesaid judgment, Petitioner who is not a party to the agreement containing an arbitration clause cannot be party to the arbitration proceedings between the parties to the arbitration agreement. There is no merit in instant petition and the same is therefore, dismissed. The Petitioner, however, is left free to work out its remedies against Respondent No. 4.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more