Non-Signatories may be bound by Arbitration Agreements 

The case involved a dispute arising from a Family Arrangement Agreement (FAA) and its subsequent amendment aimed at settling various business and legal conflicts between different groups. The parties were divided into three groups: AMP Group (Petitioners, Signatories to the FAA); JRS Group (Respondents, Signatories to the FAA); and SRG Group (Respondents, Non-signatories to the FAA) but central to the implementation of the settlement involving two companies, Millenium and Deegee. AMP Group filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act ), seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes involving both the JRS and SRG Groups.

The primary issue was whether the SRG Group, despite being a non-signatory, could be referred to arbitration. AMP contended that the SRG Group was a "veritable party" because they participated in negotiations, were represented by a common consultant, and the FAA's success was contingent on their actions (such as purchasing or exiting shares in Millenium and Deegee). SRG argued that they were "strangers" to the FAA, had no privity of contract, and never consented to be bound by the arbitration agreement.

The Supreme Court focused on the scope of judicial intervention at the pre-arbitral stage:

• Prima Facie Scrutiny: Under Section 11(6A) of the Act, the Court's role is strictly limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. It should not conduct a "mini-trial" to resolve complex factual disputes.

• Non-Signatory Doctrine: Relying on the Cox and Kings precedent, the Court noted that a non-signatory can be bound by an arbitration agreement if their conduct, relationship with signatories, and involvement in contract performance indicate a clear intention to be bound.

• Role of the Tribunal: Determining whether a non-signatory is a "veritable party" involves intricate factual and legal analysis. Therefore, such questions are best left to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide under its own jurisdiction (Section 16 of the Act).

The Court found that while the SRG Group did not sign the agreement, the FAA’s terms suggested their involvement was interdependent with the settlement. Given the complexity of the contested facts (such as the meaning of email exchanges and the role of intermediaries), the Court allowed the petition and appointed a sole arbitrator. It left all jurisdictional objections and questions of whether the SRG Group is bound by the agreement for the arbitrator to decide