Prima facie arbitration agreement and composite reference principles justified arbitration against signatories and a connected non-signatory.

At the Section 11 referral stage, objections to authority, signatures, fraud, and validity did not defeat a prima facie arbitration agreement where one respondent had executed the Facility Agreement and substantial funds were admittedly received; the Court treated the disputes as requiring factual determination and held the agreement enforceable for referral purposes against Respondents No. 1 to 3. The note also explains that a non-signatory may be referred to arbitration where the transaction is composite, the facility is linked to its assets and business implementation, and the benefit and relationship between entities justify application of the alter ego and group of companies principles, supporting a composite reference including Respondent No. 4.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitration agreement could be acted upon against Respondents No. 1 to 3 despite objections as to authority, signature, and validity of the Facility Agreement. (ii) Whether Respondent No. 4, a non-signatory, could nevertheless be referred to arbitration on the basis of the transaction structure, benefit derived, and its connection with the subject matter of the agreement.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitration agreement could be acted upon against Respondents No. 1 to 3 despite objections as to authority, signature, and validity of the Facility Agreement.

Analysis: Respondent No. 1 executed the Facility Agreement through its partner, and the admitted receipt of substantial funds supported the prima facie binding nature of the arrangement. The absence of Respondent No. 3's signature, allegations of lack of authority, absence of resolution, fraud, and invalidity of the document raised disputes that required factual adjudication beyond the limited scope of Section 11. At this stage, the Court was only required to determine whether an arbitration agreement existed prima facie, and the objections did not establish that the agreement was ex facie void or non est.

Conclusion: The arbitration agreement was held enforceable at the referral stage against Respondents No. 1 to 3, and their objections were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Respondent No. 4, a non-signatory, could nevertheless be referred to arbitration on the basis of the transaction structure, benefit derived, and its connection with the subject matter of the agreement.

Analysis: The Facility Agreement showed that the obligations were directly connected with Respondent No. 4's assets, business implementation, and resolution plan. The transaction was composite in nature, the benefit of the facility flowed to Respondent No. 4, and the relationship between the entities supported application of the alter ego and group of companies principles. Since effective adjudication of the dispute would not be feasible without Respondent No. 4, a composite reference was justified.

Conclusion: Respondent No. 4 was validly referred to arbitration notwithstanding its non-signatory status.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the disputes were directed to be adjudicated by a sole arbitrator in a composite reference involving all respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: At the referral stage under Section 11, the Court may refer signatories and even a non-signatory to arbitration where the arbitration agreement is prima facie established, the challenge to validity is not ex facie sustainable, and the transaction shows a composite, interlinked relationship justifying application of the alter ego and group of companies principles.

---