Appeal maintainable where tribunal acted under appealable provision; without-prejudice impleadment upheld to preserve substantive rights.

An appeal was held maintainable where the arbitral tribunal had expressly purported to act under an appealable provision, even though the impugned relief was impleadment. The appellate channel depended on the provision invoked, not on a later challenge to its correctness. On impleadment, the tribunal was allowed to preserve positions by adding the trust trustees as co-claimants on a without-prejudice basis, because the substantive question of partnership interest or beneficial assignment had not yet been finally decided. The interim joinder was treated as a case-management step to enable complete adjudication, and no jurisdictional error or perversity was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable against an arbitral order permitting impleadment said to have been passed under Section 17 of that Act. (ii) Whether the arbitral tribunal erred in allowing the trustees of a trust to be impleaded as co-claimants on a without-prejudice and abundant-caution basis.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable against an arbitral order permitting impleadment said to have been passed under Section 17 of that Act.

Analysis: The appellate right was tested by the provision the tribunal purported to invoke, not by whether that provision was correctly applied. Since the impugned order was expressly traced to Section 17 and the tribunal rejected the objection that joinder could not be pursued under that provision, the order was treated as one falling within the statutory appellate channel. The fact that the relief granted was one of impleadment did not by itself defeat maintainability when the tribunal had purported to act under an appealable provision.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitral tribunal erred in allowing the trustees of a trust to be impleaded as co-claimants on a without-prejudice and abundant-caution basis.

Analysis: Under the legal framework governing a limited liability partnership, only individuals or body corporates can be partners, and the person who remained the registered partner continued to be the relevant legal participant. The trust was not treated as a separate legal entity capable of displacing that status. The tribunal had not finally decided whether there had been an assignment of the partnership interest or only of beneficial enjoyment, and it had reserved that question for fuller adjudication. The impleadment was allowed only to preserve positions and enable comprehensive adjudication, while keeping substantive rights open. No perversity or jurisdictional error was shown in that course.

Conclusion: The arbitral tribunal was justified in allowing impleadment, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order under challenge was sustained and no interference was warranted in the arbitral tribunal's interim arrangement preserving the parties' positions for final adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tribunal purports to act under an appealable provision, appellate maintainability is determined by that purported exercise; and a tribunal may, for preserving the status quo and enabling complete adjudication, allow impleadment on a without-prejudice basis without finally deciding the substantive ownership dispute.

---