Madras High Court
S.Sivagurunathan vs R.Mennan on 2 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 05.10.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A. No. 2049 of 2021
S.Sivagurunathan ...Appellant
Vs
1.R.Mennan
2.Ms.Aarti Razee, ...Respondents
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Order dated 02.03.2021
in an Application filed by the first respondent dated 24.01.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Balachandran
For R.1 : Mr.R.Venkat Raman
For R.2 : Mr.T.M.Naidu & Co
1/29
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal raises an important question of law namely under
what circumstances an Arbitration Agreement binds a non-signatory.
2. Certain disputes arose between the parties of a registered
partnership firm by name Asvini Foundations. Under the Partnership Deed
dated 24.04.2000, the Appellant S.Sivagurunathan and the second
respondent Aarti Razee were the partners. Thereafter under the Partnership
Deed dated 01.06.2006, Narendra Srisrimal and Surendar Srisrimal were
inducted as partners. Thereafter, the partnership firm was reconstituted
under a Deed of Reconstitution of Partnership dated 01.04.2009 under
which, Sandeep Mehta was inducted as a partner. On 01.04.2011,
Narendra Srisrimal and Surendar Srisrimal retired from the partnership
under a Retirement Deed dated 01.04.2011 and on the same date, another
Deed of Reconstitution of Partnership was executed by the remaining
partners namely the Appellant S.Sivagurunathan, the second respondent
Aarti Razee and Sandeep Mehta. Thereafter, on 01.10.2016, under an
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
amendment of Partnership Deed, the first respondent R.Mennan was
inducted as a partner and Sandeep Mehta retired from partnership. After
the execution of the Amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016,
the Appellant S.Sivagurunathan and the respondents namely R.Mennan &
Aarti Razee became the partners of M/s.Asvini Foundations.
3. The Amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016
under which the first respondent was inducted as a partner does not
contain an arbitration clause, whereas the original Partnership Deed dated
24.04.2000, Partnership Deed dated 01.06.2006 under which Narendra
Srisrimal, and Surendar Srisrimal were inducted as partners, the Deed of
Reconstitution of Partnership dated 01.04.2009 under which Sandeep
Mehta was inducted as a partner, the Deed of Reconstitution of Partnership
dated 01.04.2011 under which, Narendra Srisrimal and Surendar Srisrimal
retired from partnership and the Appellant S.Sivagurunathan, the second
respondent Aarti J.Razee and Sandeep Mehta remained as partners
contained an arbitration clause.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
4. There arose disputes between the partners who are the
Appellant and the respondents herein. The dispute was referred to
arbitration by the second respondent who is one of the partners and she
has sought for the following reliefs before the Arbitral Tribunal:
(a) For a declaration to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-
(Rupees One Crore Only) to the claimant towards costs;
(b) For a declaration to seek for rendition of true and proper
accounts to be crystallised and thereafter to sell the properties and the
goodwill held by the firm and the sister concern Asvini Foundations Pvt.
Ltd be sold by public auction or like wise and thereby defray the monies so
obtained to clear the debts if so found and pay the partners in the ratio as
agreed in the partnership agreement;
(c) For a declaration to dissolve the partnership firm Asvini
Foundations forthwith.
5. Since the amendment of Partnership Deed dated
01.10.2016, under which the first respondent R.Mennan was inducted as
a partner did not contain an arbitration clause, the first respondent filed an
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
application under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
before the Arbitral Tribunal challenging the jurisdiction of the Arbitral
Tribunal to decide the dispute as there is no arbitration clause in the
amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016 and sought for
dismissal of the claim petition filed by the second respondent.
6. By order dated 02.03.2021, the Arbitral Tribunal allowed
the application filed by the first respondent and terminated the arbitration
on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed with
arbitration, since the first respondent was neither a party to the Partnership
Deed dated 24.04.2000 nor the arbitration clause contained in the
Partnership Deed dated 24.04.2000 was incorporated by reference in the
amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016 under which, the first
respondent was inducted as a partner.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the
Arbitral Tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
this appeal has been filed by S.Sivagurunathan, the first respondent in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
arbitration under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
8. Heard Mr.R.Balachandran, learned counsel for the
Appellant, Mr.R.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the first respondent
and Mr.T.M.Naidu, learned counsel for the second respondent.
9. Mr.R.Balachandran, learned counsel for the Appellant
would at the outset submit that the amendment of Partnership Deed dated
01.10.2016 under which the first respondent was inducted as a partner is
in the nature of an ancillary agreement and therefore when the original
Partnership Deed dated 24.04.2000 which is the mother agreement
contains an arbitration clause, the said arbitration clause is binding on the
first respondent also who is also a partner.
10. Learned counsel for the Appellant drew the attention of
this Court to the original Partnership Deed dated 24.04.2000, Partnership
Deed dated 01.06.2006, the Deed of Reconstitution of Partnership dated
01.04.2009 and the Deed of Reconstitution of Partnership dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
01.04.2011 and would submit that in all those deeds, there is an
arbitration clause. He also drew the attention of this Court to the
amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016 under which the first
respondent was inducted as a partner and would submit that excepting for
this deed, since all other deeds contain an arbitration clause, being a
partner, the first respondent is also bound by the arbitration clause
contained in the Partnership Deed dated 24.04.2000 which is the mother
agreement by which the partnership firm was originally constituted.
11. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that
the Arbitral Tribunal has passed the impugned order in conflict with and in
contravention of the fundamental policy of the (a) Contract Act,
particularly section 62 of the Contract Act, (b) Partnership Act, particularly
sections 29, 58, 63 & 69 of the Partnership Act and (c) Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996, particularly section 7 of the said Act.
12. Learned counsel for the Appellant would also submit that
the arbitration clause against the first respondent squarely falls within the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chloro Control (I) Pvt.,
Ltd., vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. & Others reported in
(2013) 1 SCC 641 and therefore according to him, the Arbitral Tribunal
erroneously allowed the application filed under section 16 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the first respondent. According
to him, the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to apply correctly the principles of
multi agreements involving multi parties in the case of reference to
arbitration as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chloro Control
(I) Pvt., Ltd. case as well as in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Limited vs. Canara bank reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 995.
13. Learned counsel for the Appellant also relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cheran Properties
Limited vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited and others reported in (2018) 16
SCC 413 and would submit that the Amendment of Partnership Deed
dated 01.10.2016 under which the first respondent was inducted as a
partner is an ancillary document to the earlier Partnership Deeds where
there is an arbitration clause and therefore, according to him, eventhough
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
there is no arbitration clause under the Amendment of Partnership Deed
dated 01.10.2016, the first respondent is bound by the arbitration clause.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent would
submit that the first respondent never had the intention of binding himself
to the Partnership Deed dated 24.04.2000 where there is an arbitration
clause. He drew the attention of this Court to the amendment of
Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016 under which, the first respondent was
inducted as a partner and in particular, he would submit that under the
said deed, fresh terms and conditions were entered into between the parties
namely, the Appellant and the respondents herein.
15. Learned counsel for the first respondent would also
submit that the terms and conditions of the Partnership Deed dated
24.04.2000 were not incorporated in the amendment of Partnership Deed
dated 01.10.2016 which inducted the first respondent as a partner and
therefore, the arbitration clause contained in the Partnership Deed dated
24.04.2000 is not binding on the first respondent. He would also submit
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
that at the time of execution of original Partnership Deed dated
24.04.2000, the first respondent was never in the picture and he was also
not associated with the partnership firm, but only on 01.10.2016, the first
respondent was inducted as a partner and therefore he would submit that
the amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016 cannot be
considered to be an ancillary agreement as claimed by the learned counsel
for the Appellant. Hence, he would submit that the Arbitral Tribunal has
rightly allowed the application filed by the first respondent under section
16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and has rightly terminated the
arbitration as the dispute involves dissolution of a partnership firm where
the first respondent is also one of the partners.
16. Apart from relying upon Chloro Control (I) Private
Limited case and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited case referred to
supra, learned counsel for the first respondent also relied upon the
following authority namely M.R.Engineers & Contractors vs. Som Datt
Builders Ltd. reported in 2009 (7) SCC 696.
Discussion:
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
17. The undisputed facts are as follows:
(a) The first respondent is not a party to the Partnership Deed
dated 24.04.2000 under which S.Sivagurunathan, the Appellant and the
second respondent Aarti Razee became the partners of the partnership firm
Asvini Foundations;
(b) The first respondent is also not a party to the Partnership
Deed dated 01.06.2006 under which Narendra Srisrimal and Surendar
Srisrimal were inducted as partners;
(c) The first respondent is also not a party to the Deed of
Reconstitution of Partnership dated 01.04.2009 under which Sandeep
Mehta was inducted as a partner along with the existing four partners;
(d) The first respondent is also not a party to the amendment
of Partnership Deed dated 09.01.2011 under which the Deed of
Reconstitution of Partnership dated 01.04.2009 was amended to enable the
partnership firm to avail loans and all the individual partners were granted
power to avail loans on behalf of the partnership firm;
(e) The first respondent is also not a party to the retirement
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
deed dated 01.04.2011 under which Narendra Srisrimal and Surendar
Srisrimal retired from the partnership;
(f) The first respondent is also not a party to the Deed of
Reconstitution of Partnership dated 01.04.2011, subsequent to the
retirement of Narendra Srisrimal and Surendar Srisrimal from the
partnership;
(g) The first respondent is also not a party to the amendment
of Partnership Deed dated 01.01.2012 under which the existing partners
namely S.Sivagurunathan, the Appellant, Aarti Razee, the second
respondent and Sandeep Mehta were given powers individually to avail
loans on behalf of the partnership firm.
(h) The first respondent was inducted as a partner only
under the amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016. Under
the said deed, Sandeep Mehta retired from the partnership firm which was
accepted by the existing partners as well as by the first respondent, the
newly inducted partner. Under the said deed, the shares in the partnership
firm to the newly inducted partner (the first respondent) and other partners
were agreed upon.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
(i) Under the amendment of Partnership Deed dated
01.10.2016, the first respondent who was inducted as a partner did not
contain an arbitration clause and also did not incorporate either as a part of
the contract or by reference the arbitration clause contained in the original
Partnership Deed dated 24.04.2000, Partnership Deed dated 01.06.2006,
the Deed of Reconstitution of Partnership dated 01.04.2009 and the Deed
of Reconstitution of Partnership dated 01.04.2011;
(j) On 24.04.2000, when the partnership firm Asvini
Foundations was originally constituted, the first respondent was not
involved either directly or indirectly in the partnership business. He came
into the picture only on 01.10.2016 when he was inducted as a partner and
was allotted shares in the partnership business.
18. The first respondent filed an application before the
Arbitral Tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
questioning the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the dispute
against him on the ground that the amendment of Partnership Deed dated
01.10.2016 under which he was inducted as a partner did not contain an
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
arbitration clause. The said application came to be allowed by the Arbitral
Tribunal under the impugned order dated 02.03.2021 and the Arbitral
Tribunal has terminated the arbitration as the dispute revolves around the
partners and the first respondent is one amongst them.
19. This Court will have to now decide as under what
circumstances, a non-signatory will be bound by the Arbitration
Agreement.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukanya
Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jayesh H Pandya and another reported in (2003)
5 SCC 531 held that a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement cannot
be referred to arbitration as there is no provision in the Arbitration Act
which prescribes a mechanism in this regard. In that decision, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that causes of action against different parties cannot
be bifurcated in a single arbitration and that an arbitration agreement will
only bind the parties which have entered into the same. However, the
aforementioned position of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was broadened in
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
the year 2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chloro Control (I) Pvt.,
Ltd. case.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chloro Control (I) Pvt.,
Ltd. vs. Severn Trent Water Purification inc. and others reported in
2012 SCC Online SC 809 adopted the “Doctrine of Group of Companies”
and provided an exceptional scenario wherein a non-signatory could be
included in the arbitration. The Group of Companies Doctrine was evolved
from ICC arbitral award of Dow Chemical Case (ICC Award No.4131,
YCA 1984. AT 131 et seq) and aimed to extend the arbitration agreement,
signed only by one or some of the companies of a group, also to the non-
signatory companies of the same group. According to it, a non-signatory
can be bound by the arbitration agreement, if the conduct of the parties
evidences a clear intention about the same. Thus, the court/tribunal can
admit a non-signatory as a party when it is satisfied that the non-signatory
is a necessary party to the contract.
22. After Chloro Control (I) Pvt., Ltd., judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra, the Arbitration and Conciliation
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
Act, 1996 was amended in the year 2015 to apply the ratio of Chloro
Control (I) Pvt., Ltd judgement, even to the domestic arbitration.
Accordingly, section 8(1) of the amendment Act (3 of 2015) was amended
and section 8 after the amendment reads as follows:
“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration
where there is an arbitration agreement.- (1) A
judicial authority, before which an action is brought
in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration
agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration
agreement or any person claiming through or
under him, so applies not later than the date of
submitting his first statement on the substance of the
dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree
or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the
parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie
no valid arbitration agreement exists.
(2) The application referred to in sub-
section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is
accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or
a duly certified copy thereof:
Provided that where the original arbitration
agreement or a certified copy thereof is not available
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
with the party applying for reference to arbitration
under sub-section (1), and the said agreement or
certified copy is retained by the other party to that
agreement, then, the party so applying shall file such
application alongwith a copy of the arbitration
agreement and a petition praying he Court to call
upon the other party to produce the original
arbitration agreement or its duly certified copy
before that Court.
(3) Notwithstanding that an application
has been made under sub-section (1) and that the
issue is pending before the judicial authority, an
arbitration may be commenced or continued and an
arbitral award made.”
23. As seen from the amendment to section 8 of the Act, the
word “party” was replaced with “a party to the arbitration agreement or
any person claiming through or under him”. Under the Partnership Deed
dated 24.04.2000, Partnership Deed dated 01.06.2006, Deed of
Reconstitution of Partnership dated 01.04.2009, Deed of Reconstitution of
Partnership dated 01.04.2011, the first respondent was never a party and
was never involved in the partnership business during those dates. Only on
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
01.10.2016, the first respondent was inducted as a partner under an
amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016. The said deed
admittedly does not contain an arbitration clause and neither the
arbitration clause contained in the earlier deeds referred to supra where the
first respondent was not a party was incorporated by reference into the
amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016 under which the first
respondent was inducted as a partner. Therefore, the replacement of the
word “party” with “a party to the arbitration agreement or any person
claiming through or under him” in section 8 of the Amendment Act, 2015
referred to supra has no bearing to the facts of the instant case.
24. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs. Canara bank reported
in 2019 SCC Online SC 995, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out the
circumstances when the Group of Companies Doctrine as laid down in
Chloro Control (I) Pvt. Ltd. case referred to supra can be invoked to make
a non-signatory to be bound by an arbitration clause. They are as follows:
1. When it is established that it was the intention of all the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
parties to bind the signatory as well as non-signatory to the arbitration
agreement.
2. When the non-signatory has been engaged in negotiation/
performance/ termination of the contract.
3. When the non- Signatory has made statements to express
its intention to be bound by the contract.
4. When the non-signatory is involved in the execution of
Composite Transaction which means a transaction with a common
business objective which would not be possible without the participation of
a non-signatory party.
5. When the signatory and non-signatory parties exist within a
tight group structure with strong organizational and financial links to
constitute “A Single Economic Unit”.
25. In the case on hand, none of the aforementioned
circumstances exist to rope in the first respondent into the arbitration
initiated by the second respondent. As observed earlier, the first respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
was inducted as a partner only under the Amendment of Partnership Deed
dated 01.10.2016 which document did not contain an arbitration clause.
He was no way concerned with the partnership business till such date,
eventhough, the partnership business commenced on 24.04.2000 itself,
when there were only two partners namely the Appellant and the second
respondent. The Amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016 under
which the first respondent was inducted as a partner cannot be treated as
an ancillary document to the earlier Partnership Deeds where the first
respondent was not a party. An ancillary document provides support to the
primary document. As on the date of the Original Partnership Deed dated
24.04.2000, when the partnership firm was originally constituted, the first
respondent was never in the picture and was no way involved in the
partnership business. In the subsequent deeds also, upto 01.10.2016, the
first respondent was not a party and during those dates also, he was not
involved in the partnership business. He became a partner only on
01.10.2016 and only then, he was involved in the partnership business.
Therefore, the Amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016 cannot
be treated as an ancillary document to the Partnership Deed dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
24.04.2000 as claimed by the learned counsel for the Appellant.
26. In the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of M.R.Engineers & contractors vs. Som Datt Builders Ltd.,
reported in (2009) 7 SCC 696, it has been made clear that if the contract
which does not contain an arbitration clause refers to another contract
which contains an arbitration clause, the arbitration agreement contained
in the other contract can be made binding on the party to the contract
where there is no arbitration clause only when the arbitration clause found
in the contract where he is not a party is incorporated into his contract.
27. In the case on hand, neither the first respondent was a
party to the Partnership Deed dated 24.04.2000 where there is an
arbitration clause nor was the said arbitration clause incorporated by
reference into the Amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016
under which the first respondent was inducted as a partner. Applying the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R.Engineers &
Contractors case referred to supra, the first respondent cannot be roped
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
into the arbitration initiated by the second respondent as the arbitration
clause contained in the Partnership Deed dated 24.04.2000 has not been
incorporated into the Amendment of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016.
28. In Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited vs.
Reynders Label Printing (India) Private Limited and another reported in
(2019) 7 SCC 62, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the non-
signatory's intention to be bound by the arbitration agreement can be
established, such non-signatory cannot be referred to arbitration.
29. In the case on hand, the Amendment of Partnership Deed
dated 01.10.2016 under which the first respondent was inducted as a
partner is not intrinsically connected to the earlier Partnership Deeds right
from 24.04.2000 to 01.04.2012 as the first respondent was never
connected with the partnership business prior to 01.10.2016. For the same
reason, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cheran Properties
Limited case reported in (2018) 16 SCC 413 relied upon by the learned
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
counsel for the Appellant has no bearing for the facts of the instant case. In
Cheran Properties Limited case, the non-signatory to the arbitration
agreement fell within the meaning of “Parties and persons claiming under
them” as found in section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
which deals with finality of Arbitral Awards. However, in the case on hand,
admittedly there was no connection whatsoever between the first
respondent and the Appellant as well as the second respondent until
01.10.2016, when the first respondent was inducted as a partner. Only the
documents prior to 01.10.2016 in which the first respondent is not a party
contains an arbitration clause and therefore, the first respondent cannot be
roped into the arbitration as the Amendment of Partnership Deed dated
01.10.2016 is not intrinsically connected with the previous documents,
when the first respondent was no way connected with the partnership
business.
30. The Doctrine of separability applies to an Arbitration
agreement. The Doctrine of separability means that an Arbitration clause
inserted in a contract is a separate agreement in the underlying contract.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
There is no such nexus between the Arbitration clause and the underlying
contract. Though the existence of the contract is necessary for
incorporating the terms of an Arbitration clause, the Arbitration agreement
is a separate and distinctive agreement which is the basis for Arbitration as
defined under the Principle of separability. The Doctrine of separability
does not affect the validity of other obligations in the contract. The
Doctrine of separability means that even if an Arbitration is included in the
underlying contract, it will be treated as an independent one. Section 16(1)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is based on the Doctrine of
separability and it clearly states that an Arbitration clause included in the
contract shall be treated as a separate and an independent agreement of the
other terms of the contract and if the Arbitral Tribunal held the contract
null and void, it will not necessarily mean or entail ipso jure the invalidity
of the Arbitration clause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd.
vs Gains Trading Ltd. reported in 2007 5 SCC 692 held that Arbitration
clause is to be treated independently from the main contract. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that if the contract is held null and void, then the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
Arbitration clause cannot be considered to be null and void too. The
Doctrine of separability just prevents the Arbitration clause from being
affected by the underlying contract. Hence, the clause is an indispensable
part of the contract.
31. In the case on hand, the Arbitration clause is admittedly
not contained in the amendment of the partnership deed dated 01.10.2016
under which the first respondent was inducted as a partner and the
Arbitration clause contained in the previous Deeds in which the first
respondent was not a party was also not incorporated by reference in the
amendment of partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016 . When there is no
Arbitration clause and when there was no nexus between the amendment
of the partnership Deed dated 01.10.2016 and the previous deeds when the
first respondent was never in the picture, applying the Doctrine of
separability, it is clear that the first respondent never agreed for Arbitration
as per the Arbitration clause contained in the Deeds prior to 01.10.2016,
where the first respondent was not a party.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
32. From the decisions referred to supra, it is clear that only
under the following circumstances, a non-signatory can be roped into the
arbitration:
(a) The non-signatory party's contract must be intrinsically
connected to the contract which contains an arbitration clause;
(b) The non-signatory on the date of the arbitration agreement
must have an intention to agree for arbitration in accordance with the
arbitration agreement;
(c) On the date when the contract which contains the
arbitration clause came into existence, the non-signatory must be
connected with that contract;
(d) A non-signatory is bound by the arbitration clause, if the
arbitration clause contained in the main contract is incorporated by
reference into the non-signatory party's contract;
(e) The parties to the ancillary contract which does not contain
an arbitration clause is bound by the arbitration agreement under the main
contract. An ancillary contract is a contract which always provides support
to the main contract and is always dependent on the main contract.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
(f) There must be consensus ad idem between the non-
signatory to the arbitration agreement and the parties to the arbitration
agreement about the arbitration agreement.
33. None of the aforementioned circumstances are applicable
to the first respondent as he was nowhere in the picture when the
partnership business originally commenced and he was neither directly nor
remotely connected to the following contracts namely (a) Original
Partnership Deed dated 24.04.2000; (b) Partnership Deed dated
01.06.2006; The Deed of Reconstitution of Partnership dated 01.04.2009
and (d) the Deed of Reconstitution of Partnership dated 01.04.2011, which
contain an Arbitration clause.
34. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
view that the Arbitral Tribunal under the impugned order dated 02.03.2021
passed under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has
rightly allowed the application filed by the first respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
35. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly,
this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated
02.03.2021 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is hereby confirmed. No costs.
12.10.2021
nl
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE.,J
nl
Pre-delivery judgment in
C.M.A.No. 2049 of
12.10.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
