Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitral Tribunal's Impleadment Order Under Section 37(2)(b) of Arbitration Act — Impleadment Not an Interlocutory Order Under Section 17. The court held that an order allowing impleadment of parties in arbitration proceedings is not appealable under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as it does not constitute an order under Section 17 of the Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY

Admin

2026-05-18 19:09:33

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petition was filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an order of the learned arbitral tribunal dated April 29, 2024, which allowed an impleadment application filed by the respondents under Section 17 of the Act. The dispute arose between two groups, Mayank and Raju, concerning control and management of a limited liability partnership, Vidhi Research and Development LLP. Raju had created a trust and sought impleadment of the trustees in the arbitration. The petitioners argued that since the impleadment was sought under Section 17, the order was appealable under Section 37(2)(b). The court examined the scope of Section 37(2)(b) and held that it provides an exhaustive list of appealable orders, and an order of impleadment does not constitute an interlocutory order under Section 17. The court reasoned that impleadment is a procedural direction and not a protective measure. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appealability of Impleadment Order - Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court considered whether an order allowing impleadment of parties by an arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Act is appealable under Section 37(2)(b). Held that impleadment is not an interlocutory protective measure under Section 17 and does not fall within the exhaustive list of appealable orders under Section 37(2)(b). The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-3, 6-8)

Issue of Consideration

Whether an order of impleadment passed by an arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is appealable under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act.

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996 provides an exhaustive list of appealable orders
impleadment of a party does not constitute an interlocutory order under Section 17 of the Act
appeal against an order of impleadment is not maintainable under Section 37(2)(b).

Case Details

2026:BHC-OS:9123

Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 409 of 2025

2026-04-10

Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.

2026:BHC-OS:9123

Mr. Sanjay Jain a/w Hrushi Narvekar, Parag Kabadi, Drishti Gudhaka, Vidhi Porwal, i/b OSK Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Senior Advocate, a/w Malcolm Siganporia, Counsel, Yuvraj Singh, Counsel, Rajesh Satpalkar & Devansh Gadda, i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt and Caroe for Respondent No.1.

Mayank J. Shah And Ors.

Raju V. Shah And Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Commercial arbitration petition under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an order of the arbitral tribunal allowing impleadment.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought interference with the arbitral tribunal's order dated April 29, 2024, which allowed an impleadment application under Section 17 of the Act.

Filing Reason

Petitioners contended that the impleadment order was passed under Section 17 and thus appealable under Section 37(2)(b).

Previous Decisions

The learned arbitral tribunal passed an order on April 29, 2024, allowing the impleadment application filed by the respondents under Section 17 of the Act.

Issues

Whether an order of impleadment passed by an arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is appealable under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that since the impleadment was sought under Section 17, the order is appealable under Section 37(2)(b). Respondents contended that impleadment is not an interlocutory order under Section 17 and thus not appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

An order of impleadment by an arbitral tribunal does not constitute an interlocutory order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore is not appealable under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act, which provides an exhaustive list of appealable orders.

Judgment Excerpts

Ordinarily, an order of impleadment which is part and parcel of procedural directions and indeed even affecting substantive rights of the parties owing to joinder being allowed, would not be appealable under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act. Impleadment of a party would not constitute an interlocutory protective measure as envisaged under Section 17 of the Act.

Procedural History

The petition was filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an order dated April 29, 2024, passed by the learned arbitral tribunal allowing an impleadment application under Section 17 of the Act. The court heard arguments on maintainability and dismissed the petition.