The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Kings & Alliance LLP does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy
Introduction
In the intricate landscape of contract law and dispute resolution, a recurring challenge arises: when do the terms of an original agreement, particularly an arbitration clause, continue to bind parties through subsequent contracts or even after the initial agreement’s natural conclusion? This fundamental question often dictates whether a dispute lands before a court or an arbitral tribunal, profoundly impacting the trajectory of legal proceedings.
It is against this backdrop that the Calcutta High Court, through the astute observations of Justice Shampa Sarkar, recently provided a significant clarification in Bimla Devi Jaiswal Vs. M/S. Indus Towers Limited1. In allowing an application for the appointment of an arbitrator, the Court unequivocally held that critical preliminary issues—such as the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and whether an arbitration clause from a principal agreement has been validly incorporated by reference into a subsequent agreement between successors-in-interest—fall squarely within the exclusive domain of the arbitral tribunal itself.
The heart of the matter revolved around a dispute concerning a mobile tower installation. The core issue was whether an arbitration clause, embedded in a “Principal Agreement” that had expired by efflux of time, remained alive and enforceable through a “Supplementary Agreement” entered into by the original signatories’ successors. The petitioner, asserting their right to arbitrate, contended that the supplementary agreement explicitly incorporated all terms and conditions of the principal agreement, including the arbitration clause, by reference. Conversely, the respondent vigorously argued that with the expiration of the principal agreement, the arbitration clause too had ceased to exist, thereby negating any obligation to arbitrate.
This article will meticulously dissect the Calcutta High Court reasoning, exploring the precedents and the underlying legal principles that shaped this significant ruling, and offering a deeper understanding of the evolving contours of arbitration law in India.
The Calcutta High Court decision rests on a well-established, albeit continuously evolving, body of law concerning the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction over preliminary issues. Specifically, two critical questions often precede the merits of a dispute: who are the true parties to an arbitration agreement, and what is the scope of that agreement? The Hon’ble Apex Court has significantly shaped the answers to these questions, particularly concerning non-signatories and the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz.
Binding Non-Signatories: When Silence Speaks Volumes
Can someone who hasn’t physically signed an arbitration agreement still be bound by it? This isn’t just a theoretical query; it’s a practical challenge in multi-party contracts and corporate structures. The Supreme Court has provided nuanced guidance on this.
In Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel2, the Apex Court elucidated that the intention of parties to be bound by an arbitration agreement can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, even for non-signatories. Drawing from the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts, 2016, the Court highlighted several factors: preliminary negotiations, established practices between parties, subsequent conduct, the nature and purpose of the contract, common trade meanings, and usages.
The Court emphasized the significance of a non-signatory’s active involvement:
“Evaluating the involvement of the non-signatory party in the negotiation, performance, or termination of a contract is an important factor… by being actively involved in the performance of a contract, a non-signatory may create an appearance that it is a veritable party… the conduct of the non-signatory may be in harmony with the conduct of the other members of the group, leading the other party to legitimately believe that the non-signatory was a veritable party… the other party has legitimate reasons to rely on the appearance created by the non-signatory party so as to bind it to the arbitration agreement.”
However, a crucial caveat was added: the involvement must be “positive, direct, and substantial,” not merely “incidental.” The burden of proof lies squarely on the party seeking to join the non-signatory, requiring “conscious and deliberate conduct… based on objective evidence.” This sets a high bar, ensuring that parties are not inadvertently pulled into arbitration.
Further expanding on this, Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc3., acknowledged that arbitration is generally between named parties, but exceptions exist. It recognized that a claim could be made against or by a third party, particularly if they are claiming “through” or “under” a signatory. Illustrative examples include situations where the claimant was always the real party, succeeded to rights by operation of law, became a party through novation, or received an assignment of the contract or a claim.
The Doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz: Arbitrators as Masters of Their Own Jurisdiction
This brings us to the fundamental principle underpinning the Calcutta High Court’s decision: the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz. Simply put, it means the arbitral tribunal has the competence to determine its own competence or jurisdiction. This is enshrined in Section 16 of the ACA4.
How does this play out when a non-signatory’s involvement is questioned?
In Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP (India) (P) Ltd5., the Supreme Court clarified that when a signatory seeks to join a non-signatory, or a non-signatory seeks to invoke arbitration, the referral court (the court approached for arbitrator appointment) should prima facie rule on the existence of the arbitration agreement. However, given the “complexity of such a determination,” the referral court should generally “leave it for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide whether the non-signatory party is indeed a party to the arbitration agreement on the basis of the factual evidence and application of legal doctrine.” This ensures that the tribunal, with its ability to delve into factual, circumstantial, and legal aspects, can make a comprehensive decision while adhering to natural justice principles.
This position was reinforced in Adavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors6.,. The Court explicitly stated:
“The determination of who is a party to the arbitration agreement falls within the domain of the arbitral tribunal as per Section 16 of the ACA. Section 16 embodies the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz… The provision is inclusive and covers all jurisdictional questions, including the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, who is a party to the arbitration agreement, and the scope of disputes referrable to arbitration under the agreement.”
The Court further noted that since the tribunal’s power derives from the arbitration agreement, these jurisdictional issues must be decided through its interpretation.
Building on this, ASF Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited7,, emphatically declared that “It is well within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the issue of joinder and non-joinder of parties and to assess the applicability of the Group of Companies Doctrine.” The Court clarified that neither Cox & Kings nor Ajay Madhusudan limited this power solely to referral courts. Instead, “both ‘courts and tribunals’ are fully empowered to decide the issues of impleadment of a non-signatory and Arbitral Tribunals have been held to be preferred forum for the adjudication of the same.”
The ASF Buildtech judgment also provided a critical perspective on the “conservative approach” courts and tribunals should avoid:
“The mutual intent of the parties, relationship of a non-signatory with a signatory, commonality of the subject matter, the composite nature of the transactions and performance of the contract are all factors that signify the intention of the non-signatory to be bound by the arbitration agreement.”
The Referral Court’s Limited Gaze: A Gateway, Not a Gatekeeper
Given the extensive powers of the arbitral tribunal under kompetenz-kompetenz, what then is the role of the court when an application for arbitrator appointment (under Section 11 of the ACA) is filed? The Supreme Court has consistently narrowed this scope.
In Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd. & Anr8., the Apex Court reiterated:
“It is now well-settled law that, at the stage of Section 11 application, the referral Courts need only to examine whether the arbitration agreement exists — nothing more, nothing less.”
This limited examination prevents parties from using the Section 11 stage to force others into costly arbitration on frivolous grounds, while simultaneously upholding the parties’ original intent to arbitrate.
The landmark seven-Judge Bench decision in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the ACA, and the Indian Stamp Act, was further solidified in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning9, Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, speaking for the bench, observed:
“The corollary of the doctrine of competence-competence is that courts may only examine whether an arbitration agreement exists on the basis of the prima facie standard of review… By appointing a tribunal or its members, this Court (or the High Courts, as the case may be) is merely giving effect to the principle enshrined in Section 16. The appointment of an arbitral tribunal does not necessarily mean that the agreement in which the arbitration clause is contained as well as the arbitration agreement itself are enforceable. The arbitral tribunal will answer precisely these questions.”
This means that issues like “accord and satisfaction” or whether a claim is time-barred, while potentially fatal to a dispute, are not for the referral court to decide. They are “preliminary issues” for the arbitral tribunal. The referral court’s role is to facilitate arbitration, not to adjudicate the substantive disputes or even complex jurisdictional challenges that require detailed evidence.
Connecting the Threads: The Calcutta High Court’s Application
Returning to the Calcutta High Court’s decision, the Calcutta High court judgement perfectly aligns with these Supreme Court precedents. The Court prima facie found that both the petitioner and respondent were “intrinsically connected with the principal agreement and chose to abide by the terms and conditions, in their entirety.” Their conduct suggested they “acted in furtherance of the said agreement.”
Crucially, the Court recognized that the core questions—whether non-signatories (the successors-in-interest in this case) are bound by the principal agreement’s terms, and whether the supplementary agreement truly incorporated the arbitration clause by reference—are complex issues demanding a thorough examination of evidence and interpretation of both agreements. These are precisely the kinds of questions that fall within the arbitral tribunal’s kompetenz-kompetenz.
By allowing the application for arbitrator appointment, the Calcutta High Court did not pre-judge the merits of the respondent’s arguments regarding the arbitration clause’s survival or its incorporation. Instead, it correctly deferred these “preliminary issues” to the arbitral tribunal, upholding the legislative intent of minimal judicial interference and reinforcing the autonomy of the arbitral process. This decision serves as a clear reminder that the gateway to arbitration is broad, leaving the intricate navigation of jurisdictional and contractual nuances to the specialized forum designed for their resolution.
Citations
Expositor(s): Adv. Anuja Pandit
