Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Shripat More, filed a petition under Section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an order dated September 4, 2025 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner's application to implead a third party (a bank) as a party to the arbitration proceedings. The petitioner contended that the third party was a veritable party and necessary for the effective resolution of the dispute. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the order was not appealable under Section 37(2)(a) and that the Tribunal's decision was correct on merits. The court examined two key issues: whether the denial of impleadment is appealable under Section 37(2)(a), and whether the impugned order was perverse. The court held that Section 37(2)(a) only provides for appeals against orders granting or refusing to grant interim measures under Section 9 or Section 17 of the Act. An order refusing impleadment does not fall within this category. The court further held that even on merits, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the third party was a necessary or proper party. The Tribunal's order was not perverse and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appealability - Section 37(2)(a) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Whether denial of impleadment of a third party is appealable - The court held that an order refusing to implead a third party does not fall within the ambit of Section 37(2)(a) as it is not an order granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under Section 9 or Section 17 of the Act - The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable (Paras 1-19). B) Arbitration Law - Impleadment of Third Party - Section 9, Section 17 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Whether the impugned order denying impleadment was perverse - The court found that the petitioner failed to establish that the third party was a necessary or proper party to the arbitration proceedings - The order was not perverse and did not warrant interference (Paras 1-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether denial of a prayer for impleading a third party who is presented as a veritable party is appealable under Section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and whether the Impugned Order dated September 4, 2025 denying such prayer is perverse and deserves interference.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The Impugned Order dated September 4, 2025 is upheld.
Law Points
- Appealability under Section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Impleadment of third party in arbitration proceedings
- Scope of Section 37(2)(a) limited to granting or refusing to grant interim measures under Section 9 or Section 17
- Order rejecting impleadment not an interim measure under Section 9 or Section 17
