Arbitral impleadment depends on consent under the arbitration agreement, not on Section 21 notice or Section 11 joinder.

A person may be impleaded in arbitral proceedings if a proper Section 7 inquiry shows that the person is a party to the arbitration agreement. Prior service of a Section 21 notice on that person, or joinder in the Section 11 application, is not a jurisdictional precondition to impleadment. The tribunal's jurisdiction comes from party consent under the arbitration agreement, and Section 16 requires the tribunal to decide whether the person sought to be added is bound by that agreement. On the contractual record here, the Supreme Court found respondents 2 and 3 were bound by the arbitration clause and could be impleaded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and joinder in a Section 11 application are prerequisites to implead a person or entity as a party to arbitral proceedings; (ii) What is the source of an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction over a person or entity sought to be impleaded, and what inquiry is required under Section 16; (iii) Whether, on the facts, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are parties to the arbitration agreement and can be impleaded in the arbitral proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether service of a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and joinder in a Section 11 application are prerequisites to implead a person or entity as a party to arbitral proceedings

Analysis: Section 21 fixes the date of commencement of arbitral proceedings and serves important purposes, including limitation and the choice of applicable arbitral law. Section 11 is only a referral mechanism for constitution of the tribunal and is confined to a limited prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Neither provision makes prior service of the Section 21 notice on every proposed party, nor their joinder in the Section 11 application, a jurisdictional condition precedent for later impleadment before the tribunal. The content of the Section 21 notice also does not finally limit the claims that may be raised in arbitration.

Conclusion: The absence of a Section 21 notice to a person, or non-joinder of that person in the Section 11 proceedings, does not by itself bar impleadment in the arbitral proceedings.

Issue (ii): What is the source of an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction over a person or entity sought to be impleaded, and what inquiry is required under Section 16

Analysis: The arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction flows from the parties' consent as reflected in the arbitration agreement under Section 7. Section 16 embodies kompetenz-kompetenz and requires the tribunal to decide its own jurisdiction, including whether the person sought to be impleaded is in fact a party to the arbitration agreement. The proper inquiry is therefore not whether the person was named in the Section 21 notice or in the Section 11 application, but whether the arbitration agreement, read with the surrounding record and conduct, binds that person.

Conclusion: The relevant jurisdictional inquiry under Section 16 is whether the person sought to be impleaded is a party to the arbitration agreement under Section 7.

Issue (iii): Whether, on the facts, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are parties to the arbitration agreement and can be impleaded in the arbitral proceedings

Analysis: Clause 40 of the LLP agreement was drawn in wide terms and covered disputes between the partners, the LLP and its administrator. Respondent no. 2 was created under the LLP agreement and carried on the project through the contractual framework and related instruments. Respondent no. 3 derived his office and responsibilities as CEO from the LLP agreement. On a holistic reading of the contractual record and conduct, both respondents manifested consent to be bound by the arbitration clause, notwithstanding that they were non-signatories.

Conclusion: Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are bound by the arbitration agreement and can be impleaded in the arbitral proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds, the contrary view of the High Court and the tribunal is set aside, and the arbitration is permitted to proceed with respondent nos. 2 and 3 as parties.

Ratio Decidendi: A person may be impleaded in arbitral proceedings if that person is shown, on a proper Section 7 inquiry, to be a party to the arbitration agreement; neither omission from the Section 21 notice nor non-joinder in the Section 11 application is ative of arbitral jurisdiction.

---