[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S Ocean View Properties Llp vs Baleshwar Sharma & Ors on 16 April, 2026
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 16.04.2026
+ ARB. A. (COMM.) 62/2024, I.A. 46927/2024 (Stay), I.A.
46929/2024 (Ex. From filing certified copy of arbitral record),
I.A. 46930/2024 (Seeking permission to file lengthy list of
dates) & I.A. 22649/2025 (Delay of 17 days in filing the reply)
M/S OCEAN VIEW PROPERTIES LLP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Pranay
Ranjan and Mr. Youkteshwari
Prasad, Advocates
versus
BALESHWAR SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Jarwal, Mr. Bilal
Ikram & Mr. Faraahat Ashar
Shahab, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Parth Shekhar and Mr.
Shubham Singh, Advs. for R-3
&4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Appeal, filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, seeks to assail the Order
dated 17.09.20242 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, whereby
the Appellant has been impleaded as a party to the arbitral
proceedings, notwithstanding that the Appellant was not a signatory to
Act
the Arbitration Agreement in question.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Respondents raises a
preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Appeal, on
the ground that though the Appeal has been preferred under Section
37(2)(b) of the Act, the Impugned Order is not one granting or
refusing an interim measure under Section 17, but is, in substance,
referable to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Arbitral Tribunal under
Section 16 of the Act.
3. He draws the attention of this Court to the Judgement passed by
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in ASF Buildtech (P) Ltd. v. Shapoorji
Pallonji & Co.3, and in particular Paragraph no.109 thereof which
reads as under;
"109. From the above exposition of law, it can be seen that there is
nothing within the scheme of the Act, 1996, which prohibits or
restrains an arbitral tribunal from impleading a non-signatory to the
arbitration proceedings on its own accord. So long as such
impleadment is undertaken upon a consideration of the applicable
legal principles -- including, but not limited to, the doctrines of
„group of companies‟, „alter ego‟, „composite transaction‟, and the
like -- the arbitral tribunal is fully empowered to summon the non-
signatory to participate in the arbitration. This autonomy stems
from the broad jurisdiction conferred upon arbitral tribunals under
the Act, 1996 to rule upon their own jurisdiction, including any
objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration
agreement, as enshrined under Section 16. The impleadment of a
non-signatory, being fundamentally a question of jurisdiction and
consent, falls squarely within the province of the tribunal‟s powers,
free from any statutory prohibition."
4. In pursuance thereof, he submits that the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in ASF Buildtech (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that the power to
add a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement in arbitral proceedings
draws sustenance from the broad jurisdiction conferred upon the
Impugned Order
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1016
learned Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act.
5. He further submits that in view of the statutory provisions, as
set out, and in particular, Section 16(5) read with Section 16(2) of the
Act, the challenge mounted to the Impugned Order is only permissible
at the stage of conclusion of the proceedings. Section 16(5) of the Act
is reproduced for ready reference hereinunder;
"16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its
jurisdiction.--
****
(2) A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have
jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the
statement of defence; however, a party shall not be precluded from
raising such a plea merely because that he has appointed, or
participated in the appointment of, an arbitrator.
(3) A plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of
its authority shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be
beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral
proceedings.
****
(5) The arbitral tribunal shall decide on a plea referred to in
sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) and, where the arbitral tribunal
takes a decision rejecting the plea, continue with the arbitral
proceedings and make an arbitral award."
(emphasis added)
6. This Court has heard the submissions of the parties and is of the
view that the preliminary objection as raised by the learned counsel
for the Respondent is cogent and valid.
7. A plain reading of Paragraph no. 109 of ASF Buildtech (P) Ltd.
(supra) makes it apparent that the power to add a non-signatory as a
party to an arbitration agreement is traceable to the broad jurisdiction
conferred upon the learned Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the
Act.
8. Further, the statutory mandate necessitates that any challenge
mounted to an order passed in exercise of powers relatable to Section
16 must remain circumscribed by Section 16(5) of the Act, and any
challenge thereto would be permissible only at the stage contemplated
therein.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the present Appeal, being not
maintainable under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act, stands dismissed.
10. The present petition, along with pending application(s), if any,
sis disposed of in the above terms.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
APRIL 16, 2026/va/kr/sg
