Arbitral impleadment of a trustee-capacity claimant stands where partnership status remains open and no jurisdictional error is shown.

A challenge to an arbitral impleadment order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was treated as unmeritorious because the Tribunal had only permitted a trustee-capacity claimant to participate while keeping the underlying partnership-status question open for final determination. The note states that, on the facts, the LLP framework recognises only individuals or body corporates as partners, but the Tribunal acted cautiously and did not finally decide cessation of partnership. It further records that no jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality was shown, and the challenge was also affected by delay and intervening proceedings. The arbitral order was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable against the arbitral order allowing impleadment of a trustee as co-claimant under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the impugned order suffered from any jurisdictional error warranting interference.

Analysis: The petition challenged an order that, though framed as one under Section 17, in substance permitted a person already connected with the arbitration and the LLP dispute to participate in a trustee capacity, on the footing that the beneficial interest in the LLP share had been settled in trust. The Court held that the LLP framework recognises only individuals or body corporates as partners, that the original partner had not ceased to be the relevant legal holder on the facts placed before the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal had proceeded cautiously by keeping the larger question of cessation of partnership open for final adjudication. The Court further held that the impugned order did not disclose perversity or any jurisdictional infirmity, especially when the Tribunal had reserved the substantive issues for later decision and the challenge had also suffered from delay and intervening proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge was held to be without merit, and interference with the arbitral order was declined.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral order permitting participation of the trustee-capacity claimant was sustained, and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory arbitral order allowing participation of a trustee-capacity claimant, where the underlying issue of partnership status remains open for final determination, will not be interfered with under Section 37 absent jurisdictional error, perversity, or other patent illegality.

---