Delhi High Court
Virtuous Energy Private Limited vs Smart Power Grid Limited & Anr on 8 July, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment pronounced on: 08.07.2025
+ ARB.P. 1267/2024
VIRTUOUS ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S.
Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma, Advs.
versus
SMART POWER GRID LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anusha Nagrajan, Ms. Aakansha
Bhola, Advs. For R-2.
+ ARB.P. 1268/2024
VIRTUOUS ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S.
Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma, Advs.
versus
SMART POWER GRID LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anusha Nagrajan, Ms. Aakansha
Bhola, Advs. For R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitions filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘A&C Act’) seeks
appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the
parties.
2. At the outset, it is noticed that these petitions are predicated on the
same factual conspectus, in the backdrop of two separate Letters of Award
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 1 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
issued in favour of the petitioner. Since there are two Letters of Award,
separate petitions have been filed qua each.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES
3. The petitioner in the present petition is a ‘Micro Enterprise’ under the
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED
Act) and is engaged in the energy sector for providing Project Management
Consultancy (PMC) and Operation and Maintenance Services (O&M) in
respect of substations and transmission lines across India.
4. It is averred in the petition that at the time when the Letter of Awards
and subsequent work orders for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the
substations and associated transmission lines of projects owned by the
respondent no.2 (transmission licensee under Section 14 of the Electricity
Act, 2003) were issued by respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner,
respondent nos. 1 and 2 were part of the Essel Group and had a common
majority shareholder i.e., Essel Infraprojects Ltd. However, as of
28.05.2019, the shareholding in respondent no.2 has been taken over by M/s
Sekura Energy Ltd (now SEPL Energy Pvt. Ltd).
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid takeover happened
after work orders and subsequent handing over formalities culminated. It is
further contended that only 49% of the shareholding of respondent no.2 was
transferred to M/s Sekura Energy Ltd (now SEPL Energy Pvt. Ltd) and the
remaining shareholding still remains with Essel group.
6. The two Letters of Awards dated 04.05.2017 (hereinafter referred as
‘LOAs’), were issued in favour of the petitioner by respondent no.1 for the
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 2 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the substations and associated
transmission lines of projects owned by the respondent no.2.
7. LOA/SPGL/ VEPL/ ERSS/ O&M / Transmission /130 (subject matter
of ARB P. 1267/2024) was issued by respondent no.1 for ‘O&M work of
400 KV transmission line and Substation for “Eastern Region System
Strengthening Scheme – VI” project’. The said project included the
following transmission lines:
8. LOA/SPGL/VEPI/NRSSXXXIB/O&M/Transmission/131 (subject
matter of ARB P. 1268/2024) was issued for ‘O&M work of 400 KV
transmission line for “Northern Region System strengthening scheme- NRSS
XXXIB” Project’, and included the following transmission lines:
9. Subsequent to the issuance of the aforesaid LOAs, work orders dated
24.07.2017 were issued in favour of the petitioner which were subsequently
extended vide orders dated 03.07.2018 (in ARB. P 1267/2024) and
30.07.2018 (in ARB. P 1268/2024). The said work orders contain anSignature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 3 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
arbitration clause, which reads as under:
“28. Governing Law & Dispute Resolution:
The applicable laws of India shall govern the PO with the
Supplier/Seller, difference, which may arise out of the PO and cannot be
settled in an amicable way between the parties, shall be settled by
arbitration in Mumbai/Delhi, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996 and the language of arbitration shall be English.”
10. The aforesaid work orders were to expire on 03.11.2018, however,
vide emails/communications dated 29.10.2018, the respondent no.1 extended
the validity of work orders till 30.11.2018. The said communications
however indicated that the work orders shall not be extended any further and
directed the petitioner to accordingly proceed with handing over of the
activities at the project sites and submit the pending bill/s for the services
rendered. The said communications read as under:
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 4 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
11. It is the case of the petitioner that despite handing over of the
materials and relevant documents as per the directions stated in
emails/communication dated 29.10.2018 and communicating the same to
respondent no.1 vide letters dated 30.11.2018 and 13.02.2019, the
respondents failed to clear the outstanding bills of the petitioner.
12. It is averred in the present petition that the petitioner received
communications/emails dated 11.09.2019 from officials of parent/group
company confirming that the aforesaid outstanding amounts are payable by
respondent no.2 and ‘no-claim’ letters are required from the petitioner for
clearance of the pending bills. In compliance of the aforesaid
communication, petitioner issued ‘no claim’ letters dated 11.09.2019, in
favour of the respondents. However, upon request of the official/s of the
parent/group company the ‘no claim’ letters came to be re-issued by the
petitioner, backdated to 28.05.2019. It is alleged that despite acknowledging
and counter-signing the ‘no claim’ letters, the respondents failed to clear the
outstanding dues.
13. Since the disputes between the parties persisted, the petitioner issued
notices dated 30.08.2021 to the respondents, invoking arbitration as per
clause 28 of the work orders for adjudication of disputes between the parties.
However, respondent no.1 failed to respond whereas respondent no.2 vide
letters dated 22.09.2021 refuted the aforesaid invocation notice primarily on
the premise that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and
respondent no.2. The letter dated 22.09.2021 reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 5 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 6 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
14. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court,
through the present petition, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
15. In the present proceedings, notice was issued by the Court on
16.08.2024. However, since none appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1,
the Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 granted petitioner with a liberty to
take fresh steps to serve the respondent no.1. An affidavit of service dated
06.12.2024 has been filed by the petitioner wherein it has been brought out
that the petitioner has taken requisite steps to serve the respondent no.1 at its
known address/es via speed post/s. The aforesaid communication is stated to
be delivered on 04.12.2024 to the office of respondent no.1 situated in
Noida, Uttar Pradesh whereas communication sent to the office of
respondent no.1 situated at Delhi returned with a notation “Item returned, as
Addressee left without instructions”.
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 7 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
16. It is stated that the respondent no.1 was also served via email at
[email protected] (as mentioned on the Master Data of the
company), and the same has not bounced back. However, the
communications delivered via dasti order on behalf of the petitioner
remained unserved.
17. Section 3 of the A&C Act contemplates that a written communication
is deemed to have been received if it is sent to the addressee’s last known
place of business or mailing address by any means which provides a record
of the attempt to deliver it. In the present case, the petitioner has made
numerous attempts to effect service on the respondent no.1 and has thereby
discharged its onus to effect service on the respondent no.1.
18. In the circumstances, the present petition is taken up for hearing and
disposal, despite no appearance on behalf of the respondent no.1.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
19. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the
respondents have been part of Essel Group and had a common majority
shareholder i.e., Essel Infraprojects Ltd. It is stated that there has existed a
strong organizational and financial link which clearly indicates that the
respondents could be considered as a ‘Single Economic Entity’. It is further
stated that even after 49% of the shareholding of respondent no.2 were
transferred to M/s Sekura Energy Ltd., the remaining shareholding still
remained with Essel Group.
20. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that the
respondent no.2 is a veritable party to the work orders issued by the
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 8 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
respondent no.1 inasmuch as the respondent no.2 was the direct beneficiary
of the contract in question. It is stated that the predominant obligation in
terms of clauses 2 and 4 of the Technical Specifications of LoA (hereinafter
referred as ‘Technical Specifications’) was towards respondent no.2 and not
respondent no.1. It is further submitted that as per clause 1.1 of the
Technical Specifications, the respondent no.2 has been defined as the
“Owner” and in terms of clause 8 of the Technical Specifications, release of
payments to the petitioner were consequential to various certifications issued
by the respondent no.2. In this regard, reliance is placed upon “Direct
Benefits Estoppel Theory” discussed by this Court in DLF Limited vs PNB
Housing Finance Limited, MANU/DE/2237/2024.
21. It is further submitted that email/communication dated 11.09.2019
received by the petitioner from officials of the Finance and Accounts
Department, Essel Infraprojects Ltd. confirmed that the aforesaid
outstanding amounts were to be paid by respondent no.2. It is further
submitted that the ‘no claim’ letters dated 28.05.2019 (back-dated), were
countersigned by the respondent no.2 and the said respondent expressly
undertook the obligation to pay the dues of the petitioner on behalf of the
respondent no.1. By placing reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in
RBCL Piletech Infra vs Bhola Singh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd,
MANU/DE/4804/2024, the petitioner contends that where payments are
dependent on certification by a third party/ non-signatory, the non-signatory
can also be referred to arbitration by a referral court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No.2
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 9 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
22. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.2 submits that the
respondent no.2 is neither a party to the arbitration agreement relied upon
nor related to the disputes agitated by the petitioner. It is further stated that
the petitioner has failed to place on record any correspondence or
communications/documents to demonstrate that there exists any privity of
contract between the petitioner and respondent no.2.
23. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the learned counsel of the
petitioner on Technical Specifications is misplaced inasmuch as it outlines
the scope of services to be rendered in the contract executed between the
petitioner and respondent no.1.
24. It is stated that the respondent no.2 has never agreed to the terms and
conditions specified in the Technical Specifications. Furthermore, the actual
certificate of completion of work has also been issued by the respondent
no.1.
25. It is stated that the respondent no.2 appointed respondent no.1 as its
contractor for carrying out the O&M of the transmission system under a
separate contract. Respondent no.1 at its own discretion sub-contracted the
aforesaid contracted work to the petitioner by way of the LoAs and
subsequent work orders, to which respondent no.2 was not a party. Thus, the
respondent no.2 was only liable to make payments to respondent no.1,
which it has already paid in full and for which respondent no.1 has also
issued a no-dues certificate dated 28.05.2019 to the respondent no.2.
26. It is submitted that the ‘direct beneficiary estopple theory’ is not
applicable in the present petition inasmuch as any project/contract which
involves execution of different parts of the work through sub-contractor/s,
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 10 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
would inevitably have interference of the owner/s during the execution of
the said contract. However, the same cannot be construed to conclude that
owner/s is deriving direct benefits from the sub-contracted party. It is further
submitted that under the sub-contract it was the respondent no.1 who was
obligated to pay the petitioner and evidently, the petitioner never raised any
invoices upon respondent no.2.
27. It is submitted that there exists no connection between the
shareholders and management of respondent nos.1 and 2 pursuant to the
transferring of shareholdings of the respondent no.2 to M/s Sekura Energy
Ltd. It is further stated that the respondents have an independent corporate
existence and are functionally, financially and economically neither
interconnected nor intertwined.
28. The existence and authenticity of ‘no claim’ letter dated 28.05.2019
(allegedly back-dated) and email/communications dated 11.09.2019
exchanged between the petitioner and officials of Essel Infraprojects Ltd,
prior to the issuance of the aforesaid letters is strenuously controverted by
the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.2. It is contended that
respondent no.2 neither authorized any person to execute any document
pursuant to the change of management nor there is record or reference to any
correspondence or email by which the said purported counter-signed letters
appear to have been agreed to or sent to the petitioner by the respondents,
particularly respondent no.2.
29. It is further submitted that the facts and circumstances alleged by the
petitioner would require a detailed and elaborate examination of the facts,
each of which would require to be proved by leading oral evidence, which
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 11 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
clearly is outside the purview of a referral court under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the A&C
Act’).
REASONING AND CONCLUSION
30. The legal position is now well settled that although normally, only
formal signatories to an arbitration agreement will be bound by it, in certain
circumstances, non-signatories may become bound therewith in certain
situations.
31. Various tests and legal theories are applied to determine whether a
non-signatory is to be bound by an arbitration agreement.
32. In Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water
Purification Inc. and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 641 and Cox and Kings
Limited v. SAP India Private Limited and Another, (2024) 4 SCC 1, it has
been recognized that consent-based theories such as agency, novation,
assignment, operation of law, merger and succession and third-party
beneficiaries can be applied to bind non-signatories to an arbitration
agreement. Further, non-consensual theories such as alter ego and estoppel
have also been applied to bind a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement.
The Group of Companies Doctrine has also been applied in certain situations
to bind non-signatories to an arbitration agreement.
33. In ONGC Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises (P) Ltd., 2022 8 SCC 42 the
Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that there are at least two distinct
estoppel doctrines that apply in the non-signatories context, that is, ‘the
direct benefits’ estoppel theory and the ‘intertwined’ estoppel theory. It is
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 12 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
noticed that ‘intertwined estoppel theory’ looks at the nature of the disputes
between the signatories and the non-signatories and in particular whether
“issues the non-signatories seeking to resolve in arbitration are intertwined
with the agreement with estoppel (signatory party) signed”. The relevant
observations of the Supreme Court in ONGC Ltd. (supra) are reproduced as
under:-
“37. Gary B. Born in his treatise on International Commercial Arbitration
indicates that” The principal legal basis for holding that a non-signatory is
bound (and benefited) by an arbitration agreement … include both purely
consensual theories (e.g., agency, assumption, assignment) and non-
consensual theories (e.g. estoppel, alter ego).”
38. Explaining the application of the alter ego principle in arbitration, Born
also notes:
“Authorities from virtually all jurisdictions hold that a party who has not
assented to a contract containing an arbitration clause may nonetheless be
bound by the clause if that party is an ‘alter ego’ of an entity that did execute,
or was otherwise a party to, the agreement. This is a significant, but
exceptional, departure from the fundamental principle … that each company
in a group of companies (a relatively modern concept) is a separate legal
entity possessed of separate rights and liabilities.
***
“the group of companies doctrine is akin to principles of agency or implied
consent, whereby the corporate affiliations among distinct legal entities
provide the foundation for concluding that they were intended to be parties to
an agreement, notwithstanding their formal status as non-signatories.”
39. Recently, John Fellas elaborated on the principle of binding a non
signatory to an arbitration agreement from the lens of the doctrine of
estoppel. He situated the rationale behind the application of the principle of
direct estoppel against competing considerations of party autonomy and
consent in interpreting arbitration agreements. Fellas observed that non-
signatory parties can be bound by the principle of direct estoppel to prohibit
such a party from deriving the benefits of a contract while disavowing the
obligations to arbitrate under the same:
“There are at least two distinct types of estoppel doctrine that apply in the
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 13 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
non-signatory context: “the direct benefits” estoppel theory and the
“intertwined” estoppel theory. The direct benefits theory bears the hallmark
of any estoppel doctrine-prohibiting a party from taking inconsistent
positions or seeking to “have it both ways” by “relying] on the contract when
it works to its advantage and ignoring] it when it works to its disadvantage.”
Tepper Realty Co. v. Mosaic Tile Co. The direct benefits doctrine reflects that
core principle by preventing a party from claiming rights under a contract
but, at the same time, disavowing the obligation to arbitrate in the same
contract.
***
By contrast, the intertwined estoppel theory looks not to whether any benefit
was received by the non-signatory, but rather at the nature of the dispute
between the signatory and the non-signatory, and, in particular whether “the
issues the non-signatory is seeking to resolve in arbitration are intertwined
with the agreement that the estoppel [signatory party] has signed….the
intertwined estoppel theory has as its central aim the perseveration of the
efficacy of the arbitration process is clear when one looks at the typical fact
pattern of an intertwined estoppel case.”
34. In Cox & Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited and Another
(supra), a Five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court while taking note of the
observations in ONGC Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) has
also observed that “the doctrine of arbitral estoppel suggests that a party is
estopped from denying its obligation to arbitrate when it received a “direct
benefit” from a contract containing an arbitration agreement”. (Paragraph
59)
35. This Court in Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Rattan India
Power Ltd., (2021) 281 DLT 246 has expressly noticed that several
jurisdictions have drawn heavily on the principle of estoppel to include non-
signatories within the sweep of an arbitration agreement. Particularly so,
when the rights created in favour of the non-signatories are pursuant to the
benefits derived under the main agreement containing the arbitration clause.
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 14 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
In this regard reference may be made to paragraph 30 of the judgment in
case of Shapoorji Pallonji (supra) wherein it has been observed as under:
“30. Courts in several jurisdictions have drawn heavily on the principle of
estoppel and have compelled non-signatories to arbitrate.
31. In Avila Group Inc. v. Norma J. of California : 426 F. Supp. 537
(S.D.N.Y. 1977) the court found that a party cannot assert the existence of a
valid contract to base its claims and at the same time deny the contract’s
existence to avoid arbitration. The court observed that “to allow [plaintiff] to
claim the benefit of [a] contract and simultaneously avoid its burdens would
both disregard equity and contravene the purposes underlying enactment of
the Arbitration Act.”
32. In Life Techs. Corp. v. AB Sciex Prop. Ltd. : 803 F. Supp. 2d 270, 273-
274 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) it was held that “a non-signatory may be estopped from
avoiding arbitration where it knowingly accepted the benefits of an
agreement with an arbitration clause. The benefits must be direct – which is
to say, flowing directly from the agreement”.”
36. It is well settled that the scope of determining impleadment of non-
signatories to an arbitration by a referral Court is confined to asserting,
prima facie the existence of an arbitration agreement and whether the non-
signatory party is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement. In
circumstances where complexity is involved in such a determination, the
same is best to be left for consideration by an Arbitral Tribunal. The
aforesaid view has been rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in Cox and Kings Ltd. vs SAP India (P) Ltd (supra) as under:
“169. In case of joinder of non-signatory parties to an arbitration
agreement, the following two scenarios will prominently emerge : first,
where a signatory party to an arbitration agreement seeks joinder of a
non-signatory party to the arbitration agreement; and second, where a
non-signatory party itself seeks invocation of an arbitration agreement.
In both the scenarios, the referral court will be required to prima facie
rule on the existence of the arbitration agreement and whether the non
signatory is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement. In view of the
complexity of such a determination, the referral court should leave it for
the Arbitral Tribunal to decide whether the non-signatory party is indeedSignature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 15 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
a party to the arbitration agreement on the basis of the factual evidence
and application of legal doctrine. The Tribunal can delve into the factual,
circumstantial, and legal aspects of the matter to decide whether its
jurisdiction extends to the non-signatory party. In the process, the
Tribunal should comply with the requirements of principles of natural
justice such as giving opportunity to the non-signatory to raise objections
with regard to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. This
interpretation also gives true effect to the doctrine of competence
competence by leaving the issue of determination of true parties to an
arbitration agreement to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under
Section 16.”
37. Further, Cox & Kings (supra) also clearly acknowledges that “the
issue of binding a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement is more of a fact
specific aspect” (paragraph 60) and in this light, has clearly laid down that
once existence of an arbitration agreement is established, the referral court
can leave it to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide whether impleadment of non-
signatory parties is warranted on application of the parameters laid down in
Chloro Control India (supra), ONGC Ltd.(supra) & Cox & Kings (supra).
38. Furthermore, considering the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in
Cox and Kings Ltd. vs SAP India (P) Ltd (supra) a Three-judge Bench of
the Supreme Court in Ajay Madhusudan Patel and Others v. Jyotrindra S.
Patel and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2597 held that when a detailed
examination of disputed questions of facts are necessary to determine
whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement, it should be
left for a duly constituted arbitral tribunal to consider and a referral court
should refrain from conducting ‘mini trials’ and delving into contested or
disputed questions of facts. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as
under: –
“79. A detailed examination of numerous disputed questions of fact are
imperative in deciding whether the SRG Group participated in theSignature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 16 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
negotiation and performance of the underlying contract and can be
bound by the arbitration agreement. At the cost of repetition, we may
state that under our limited jurisdiction afforded under Section 11(6) of
the Act, 1996 we should not conduct a mini trial and delve into contested
or disputed questions of fact. This has been categorically laid down in
several decisions of this Court including Vidya Drolia (supra) and Krish
Spinning (supra). Further, it is also the case of the SRG Group that a
dual test needs to be satisfied before it is compelled to be a party to the
present arbitration proceedings i.e., (a) SRG Group should be shown to
have agreed to the underlying contract and (b) SRG Group should also
be shown to have agreed to be bound by the arbitration agreement. We
are of the considered view that the same requires a much more detailed
examination of the evidence that may be adduced by the parties which
can only be gone into by the Arbitral Tribunal.
80. Therefore, considering the complexity involved in the determination
of the question whether the SRG Group is a veritable party to the
arbitration agreement or not, we are of the view that it would be
appropriate for the arbitral tribunal to take a call on the question after
taking into consideration the evidence that may be adduced by the parties
before it and the application of the legal doctrine as elaborated in the
decision in Cox and Kings (supra).”
39. In the present case, there is no controversy as regards existence of the
arbitration agreement in the work orders issued in favor of the petitioner by
the respondent no.1. As such, there is no impediment in constituting an
arbitral tribunal for adjudicating the disputes between the petitioner and
respondent no.1 as mandated in terms of the judgments of the Supreme
Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Krish Spinning, 2024 INSC
532 and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration
& Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1666.
40. As regards the issue whether the respondent no.2 is veritable party to
the arbitration agreement by virtue of (i) being a group company; (ii) by
virtue of being a direct beneficiary of the contractual mechanism (iii)
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 17 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
assumption of contractual obligations under the work order/s (by the
respondent no.2) by virtue of correspondence – are all aspects which require
an intricate factual analysis and determination.
41. In terms of the judgment of Supreme Court in Cox and Kings Ltd. vs
SAP India (P) Ltd (supra) and Ajay Madhusudan Patel and Others v.
Jyotrindra S. Patel and Others (supra), the aforesaid aspects are necessarily
required to be considered by a duly constituted arbitral tribunal.
42. In the circumstances, on a prima facie conspectus, there is no
impediment to constituting an arbitral tribunal in these proceedings. The
issue as to whether the respondent no.2 can be brought within the sweep of
the proposed arbitration would necessarily be decided by the learned
arbitrator in accordance with law, upon consideration of the relevant factual
conspectus.
43. Needless to say, it shall be open to the respondent no.2 to raise
appropriate jurisdictional objections which shall be duly considered by the
Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with law.
44. Accordingly, Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate (Mob. No.: + 91
9810056263) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties.
45. The reference under each work order shall be independent of each
other. However, the learned Arbitrator may hold common sittings for the
sake of convenience.
46. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration
proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties requisite disclosure as
required under Section 12 of the A&C Act.
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 18 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
47. It is directed that the arbitration shall take place under the aegis of and
as per the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
48. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the
claims/counter claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Sole
Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.
49. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.
50. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
JULY 8, 2025/sl
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1267/2024 & ARB.P. 1268/2024 Page 19 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:17.07.2025
03:53:20
[ad_1]
Source link