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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more