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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more