Group of Companies Doctrine permits arbitral tribunal to decide joinder of non-signatories when referral court has not ruled conclusively.

Where the referral court has not conclusively decided joinder of a non-signatory, the arbitral tribunal may determine whether that party is bound by the arbitration agreement under the Group of Companies Doctrine while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The tribunal is not confined to the Civil Procedure Code power under Order I Rule 10 for this purpose. The Court found no jurisdictional or legal infirmity in the impugned order and held that no ground was made out for interference under Section 34. The challenge to the tribunal's decision on impleadment of non-signatories therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitral tribunal could decide the impleadment of non-signatories to the arbitration agreement by applying the Group of Companies Doctrine. (ii) Whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitral tribunal could decide the impleadment of non-signatories to the arbitration agreement by applying the Group of Companies Doctrine.

Analysis: The Court held that the Supreme Court's exposition of the Group of Companies Doctrine leaves the question of whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement to the arbitral tribunal, particularly where the referral court has not itself adjudicated the point. The tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16 includes deciding objections as to the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, and that extends to determining whether non-signatories may be bound and joined. The absence of a specific impleadment prayer before the referral court did not deprive the tribunal of power to apply the doctrine. The tribunal was therefore not constrained to a Civil Court's power under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The arbitral tribunal could validly decide joinder of the non-signatories, and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The Court found no merit in the contention that the impugned order suffered from any jurisdictional or legal infirmity warranting interference under Section 34. The tribunal's decision on impleadment and jurisdiction was within its competence, and the petitioners retained the opportunity to contest the substantive issues before the tribunal and, if necessary, after the final award. No valid ground for setting aside the impugned order was established.

Conclusion: The Section 34 challenge was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral tribunal's decision to implead the non-signatories was upheld, and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the referral court has not conclusively decided joinder of a non-signatory, the arbitral tribunal may determine whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement under the Group of Companies Doctrine, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 16.

---