Composite arbitration can bind non-signatories where linked agreements form one transaction and fragmentation would defeat the bargain.

Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was applied liberally to require reference of disputes to arbitration in a composite multi-agreement transaction, even where some ancillary agreements lacked arbitration clauses and some parties were non-signatories. The Court treated the principal shareholders agreement as the mother agreement and held that non-signatories could be bound where they claimed through or under signatory parties, the agreements were intrinsically inter-linked, and the parties intended a composite arbitral arrangement. It also held that bifurcation of parties and causes of action was unwarranted because the contracts were interdependent and fragmented adjudication would defeat the bargain. The referral to arbitration was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must refer disputes to arbitration in a composite multi-agreement transaction even where some agreements do not contain an arbitration clause and some parties are non-signatories; (ii) Whether bifurcation of parties and causes of action was impermissible on the facts and whether the entire dispute had to be retained in civil court.

Issue (i): Whether, under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must refer disputes to arbitration in a composite multi-agreement transaction even where some agreements do not contain an arbitration clause and some parties are non-signatories.

Analysis: Section 45, read with Section 44 and Schedule I, was held to be a liberal and mandatory provision intended to promote international commercial arbitration. The expression "person claiming through or under" was construed broadly enough, in exceptional cases, to include non-signatories where the agreements formed part of one composite transaction and were intrinsically inter-linked. The principal shareholders agreement was treated as the mother agreement, and the ancillary agreements were held to be executory and dependent upon it. The Court further held that incorporation by reference, common corporate control, and the group of companies doctrine could bind non-signatories where the parties' intention to create a composite arbitral arrangement was clear.

Conclusion: Yes. The disputes arising out of the composite transaction, including those involving non-signatories claiming through or under the signatory parties, were referable to arbitration.

Issue (ii): Whether bifurcation of parties and causes of action was impermissible on the facts and whether the entire dispute had to be retained in civil court.

Analysis: The Court held that the agreements were not independent and severable in the manner suggested by the appellant. The ancillary contracts were executed to implement the principal agreement and were so interdependent that partial reference would defeat the bargain and create the risk of fragmented adjudication. In these circumstances, the civil suit could not be retained merely because some agreements had no arbitration clause or some parties were not signatories, particularly when the disputed matters were capable of being resolved together under the arbitral mechanism chosen by the parties.

Conclusion: No. Bifurcation was not warranted, and the dispute was fit for a composite reference to arbitration.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the High Court's order referring the disputes to arbitration was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court must refer a dispute to arbitration where the transaction is composite and the non-signatory parties are shown to claim through or under the signatory parties, and ancillary agreements may be drawn into the reference when they are inseparably linked to the principal agreement containing the arbitration clause.

---