Arbitration maintainability for contracting group members upheld; prematurity and non-arbitrability objections rejected where live disputes existed.

A petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as maintainable for petitioners who were, in substance, part of the contracting group that entered the arbitration agreement, even though the first petitioner alone could not sustain maintainability on the record. Objections that the request for arbitration was premature, that pre-arbitral discussion or mediation had not been exhausted, and that the disputes were non-arbitrable were rejected. The existence of live disputes concerning equity participation and transfer of technology under the agreement was sufficient to justify reference to arbitration, and a sole arbitrator was appointed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable at the instance of persons claiming to represent the contracting entity, and whether the objections as to prematurity and non-arbitrability barred appointment of an arbitrator.

Analysis: The Agreement was executed by one party on behalf of a group described as Kanda and Associates, and the record showed that this entity comprised not only the signatory but also the other petitioners who claimed to be part of that group. On that basis, the petition was not treated as maintainable for the first petitioner alone, but there was no reason to deny maintainability for the other petitioners who were part of the contracting side. The objections that the request for arbitration was premature, that prior mutual discussion and mediation had not been exhausted, and that the disputes were not arbitrable were rejected as without merit in the circumstances. The existence of disputes concerning equity participation and transfer of technology under the Agreement was sufficient to justify reference to arbitration.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable in substance at the instance of the petitioners other than the joint venture company, and the respondent's objections failed; a sole arbitrator was appointed and the disputes were referred to arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record shows that persons claiming to represent a contracting group were in substance part of the entity that entered the arbitration agreement, their petition for appointment of an arbitrator cannot be defeated merely on the ground that they were not individually signatories; objections of prematurity and non-arbitrability will not prevail where live disputes under the agreement exist.

---