Emergency arbitration and group of companies doctrine upheld for interim relief and non-signatory binding in composite transactions.

Party autonomy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits adoption of institutional rules providing for emergency relief, so an emergency arbitrator appointed under SIAC Rules can function as an arbitral tribunal for urgent interim measures and the resulting order is enforceable under Section 17(2). The group of companies doctrine may bind a non-signatory affiliate where the agreements, negotiations, performance, and conduct show a composite transaction and a clear common intention to arbitrate together. A challenge that the emergency order was void for alleged FEMA or control violations was treated as a merits objection, not a jurisdictional nullity, and the order was sustained and enforced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an emergency arbitrator appointed under SIAC Rules is an arbitrator for the purposes of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and whether the emergency order is enforceable under Section 17(2); (ii) Whether the group of companies doctrine could be invoked to bind a non-signatory affiliate as a party to the arbitration; (iii) Whether the emergency order was a nullity on the ground that the composite transaction allegedly resulted in unlawful control or FEMA violation.

Issue (i): Whether an emergency arbitrator appointed under SIAC Rules is an arbitrator for the purposes of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and whether the emergency order is enforceable under Section 17(2).

Analysis: Party autonomy under Sections 2(6), 2(8) and 19(2) permits parties to adopt institutional rules that provide for emergency relief. The SIAC Rules expressly contemplate an emergency arbitrator, treat the resulting order as binding, and allow interim relief before constitution of the tribunal. On that footing, the emergency arbitrator functions as an arbitral tribunal for the limited purpose of urgent interim measures, and the resulting order falls within Section 17.

Conclusion: The emergency arbitrator was a proper arbitrator for these purposes, and the interim order was enforceable under Section 17(2).

Issue (ii): Whether the group of companies doctrine could be invoked to bind a non-signatory affiliate as a party to the arbitration.

Analysis: The controlling test is not mere signatory status but the parties' common intention, discerned from the contract structure, negotiations, performance, disclosures, interconnected obligations, and whether the transaction is composite and interdependent. The doctrine applies where there is direct relationship, commonality of subject matter, composite performance, and a clear basis to treat the non-signatory as a necessary and intended participant in the bargain. The facts showed intertwined agreements, coordinated negotiations, shared objectives, and the non-signatory's active involvement and benefit from the arrangement.

Conclusion: The doctrine was rightly applied, and the non-signatory affiliate was properly treated as bound for the arbitration proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether the emergency order was a nullity on the ground that the composite transaction allegedly resulted in unlawful control or FEMA violation.

Analysis: The challenge was treated as a merits-based objection rather than a true jurisdictional nullity. The protective and negative rights conferred by the agreements did not amount to control over the listed company, and the composite reading of the agreements did not render the arrangement unlawful. The emergency arbitrator had already given reasoned findings rejecting the FEMA-based objection and the court found no basis to treat the order as void.

Conclusion: The emergency order was not a nullity, and the FEMA/control objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The objections to enforcement were rejected, the emergency interim order was sustained and enforced, and coercive steps for disobedience were directed against the respondents, with the matter listed for compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where parties have adopted institutional arbitration rules that expressly provide for emergency arbitration, an emergency arbitrator may exercise interim relief powers as part of the arbitral process, and a non-signatory may be bound where the agreements and conduct disclose a composite transaction and a clear common intention to arbitrate together.

---