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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more