KAMAL GUPTA & ANR.versusM/S L.R BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ETC.

                  [2025] 9 S.C.R. 137 : 2025 INSC 975

                        Kamal Gupta & Anr.
                                 v.
                M/s L.R Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc.
                 (Civil Appeal No(s). 10639-10643 of 2025)
                                13 August 2025
                 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
                      Atul S. Chandurkar,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether it is permissible for a non-signatory to an agreement
       leading to arbitration proceedings to remain present in such
       arbitration proceedings; after appointment of an arbitrator u/s.11(6),
       Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whether it is permissible for
       the Court in such disposed of proceedings to issue any further
       ancillary directions concerning the arbitration proceedings that have
       commenced pursuant to appointment of the arbitrator.

                                   Headnotes†
       Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.35, 42A – Oral
       family settlement entered into between ‘PG’ and ‘KG’ was
       reduced in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement
       Deed which was not signed by son of ‘KG’ (‘RG’) – Disputes
       arose, proceedings u/s.11(6) were filed for appointment of a
       sole arbitrator – ‘RG’, a non-signatory to the agreement filed
       application seeking intervention – Arbitrator appointed –
       Eventually, application for intervention was also allowed and
       ‘RG’ and other non-signatory intervenors were permitted to
       be present, either personally or through counsel during the
       arbitration – Challenge to:
       Held: The permission granted to ‘RG’, a non-signatory to remain
       present in all proceedings before the sole arbitrator is without
       jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the Act – When the arbitration
       proceedings can take place only between parties to an arbitration
       agreement and s.35 does not make the arbitral award to be passed
       binding on non-signatories to such agreement, there is no legal
       right conferred by the Act that would enable a non-party to the
       agreement to remain present in arbitration proceedings between
       signatories to the agreement – The parties to the agreement being
       bound by the terms of the agreement and the sole arbitrator being
* Author
138                                                             [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       required to resolve the disputes between parties to the agreement,
       a non-signatory to the agreement would be a stranger to such
       arbitration proceedings – A stranger cannot be permitted to remain
       present in the arbitration proceedings especially when the award to
       be passed would not be binding on such stranger – The arbitrator,
       the arbitral institution and the parties to the arbitration agreement
       have to maintain confidentiality of all arbitral proceedings –
       Permitting a stranger to the arbitration proceedings to remain
       present and observe the said proceedings would result in breach
       of the provisions of s.42A – The remedy, if any, to a party who is
       not a signatory to the agreement is available u/s.36 of the Act if
       such award is sought to be enforced against him. [Paras 13, 14]

       Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.11(6), 5 – After
       appointment of an arbitrator u/s.11(6), whether it is permissible
       for the Court in such disposed of proceedings to issue
       any further ancillary directions concerning the arbitration
       proceedings that have commenced pursuant to appointment
       of the arbitrator:
       Held: No – The sole arbitrator having been appointed u/s.11(6) on
       22.03.2024, nothing further was required to be done in exercise
       of jurisdiction u/s.11(6) thereafter – The prayer made by ‘RG’
       and other intervenors to permit them to remain present in the
       arbitration proceedings before the sole arbitrator was not liable
       to be entertained as such request went beyond the scope of
       s.11(6) – s.151, CPC could not have been invoked in this regard –
       The Court had become functus officio after the sole arbitrator was
       appointed and the proceedings u/s.11(6) had been disposed of –
       s.5 also precluded the Court from entertaining such request which
       does not find place in Part-I of the Act – Moreover, the impugned
       direction runs counter to s.42A – Applications filed by ‘RG’ and
       other non-signatory companies in the disposed of proceedings
       were misconceived – The attempt on their behalf to re-open the
       proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law – It
       was an error to entertain the same on merits – Order passed on
       the various interim applications, set aside – Costs imposed on
       respondents – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.151. [Paras 23, 24]

                                Case Law Cited
       In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the
       Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act,
       1899, 2023 INSC 1066 : [2023] 15 SCR 1081 – followed.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                            139

      Kamal Gupta & Anr. v. M/s L.R Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc.


     Nimet Resources Inc. & Anr. v. Essar Steels Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC
     313 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Code of Civil Procedure,
     1908.

                             List of Keywords
     Non-signatory to arbitration agreement; Stranger to arbitration
     proceedings; Confidentiality of arbitral proceedings; Non-signatory
     intervenors; Stranger cannot be present in the arbitration
     proceedings; A party not signatory to the arbitration agreement;
     Section 35, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42A,
     Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Disposed of arbitration
     proceedings; Ancillary directions; Functus officio; Section 11(6),
     Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 5, Arbitration and
     Conciliation Act, 1996; Sole arbitrator appointed; Proceedings under
     Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 disposed of;
     Oral family settlement; Memorandum of Understanding (MoU);
     Family Settlement Deed (FSD); Non-signatory to the Memorandum
     of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed; Attempt to re-open the
     proceedings; Abuse of process of law.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
     10639-10643 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2024 of the High Court
     of Delhi at New Delhi in ARBP No. 1010 of 2022 in IA Nos. 35767,
     39500, 39642, and 40765 of 2024
     With:
     Diary No. 9078 of 2025

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     C. Aryama Sundaram, V Giri, Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Sr. Advs.,
     Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Abhishek Gupta, Gaurav Sethi, Dhiraj
     Abraham Philip, Chandratanay Chaube, Rahul Pawar, Himanshu
     Satija, Karan Khanna, Harshit Khanduja, Ms. Sujal Gupta, Harshed
140                                                           [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Sundar, Ms. Neha Mehta Satija, Ms. Simran Mulchandani, Vishal
       Sharma, Pulkit Khanduja, Shailendra Slaria, Rushabh Kapadia.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Amit Sibal, Akhil Sibal, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, J Sai Deepak,
       Sr. Advs., Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Ms. Kanika Singhal, Shekhar Gupta,
       Shivek Trehan, Abhishek Mishra, Moksh Tyagi, Ms. Muskan Puri,
       Kartik Kumar, Ms. Ishika, Ishan Kumar, Ms. Ayushi Sinha.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

       Atul S. Chandurkar, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     Two questions arise for consideration in these appeals namely,
       (a)   Whether it is permissible for a non-signatory to an agreement
             leading to arbitration proceedings to remain present in such
             arbitration proceedings?
       (b)   After appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the
             Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whether it is permissible
             for the Court in such disposed of proceedings to issue any further
             ancillary directions concerning the arbitration proceedings that
             have commenced pursuant to appointment of the arbitrator?
3.     Facts relevant for considering the aforesaid questions are that on
       20.06.2015, an oral family settlement was entered into between
       members of the Gupta family, namely Pawan Gupta and Kamal Gupta
       (hereinafter referred to as ‘PG’ and ‘KG’). The said oral agreement
       was said to be reduced in a Memorandum of Understanding /Family
       Settlement Deed (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MoU/FSD’) dated
       09.07.2019. This MoU/FSD was not signed by Rahul Gupta, son of
       KG (hereinafter referred to as ‘RG’). Proceedings under Section 11(6)
       of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to
       as ‘the Act’) were filed by PG and another against KG and others
       seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudicating disputes
       between the parties under the MoU/FSD. In the proceedings filed
       under Section 11(6) of the Act, an application for intervention being
       I.A. No.13282 of 2023 was filed by RG, a non-signatory, seeking
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                           141

      Kamal Gupta & Anr. v. M/s L.R Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc.


     permission to intervene in the said proceedings so as to oppose the
     maintainability of the same. PG and one other also filed a petition
     under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim measures on the basis of the
     MoU/FSD dated 09.07.2019. A similar application for intervention was
     filed by RG and one other in these proceedings being I.A. No.12227
     of 2023. By the order dated 22.03.2024, Arbitration Petition No.1010
     of 2022 seeking appointment of an arbitrator as well as OMP(I)
     (COMM) No.198 of 2023 being the petition filed under Section 9
     of the Act praying for interim measures came to be decided. A sole
     arbitrator came to be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between
     the parties. The petition filed under Section 9 of the Act was directed
     to be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act for being
     decided by the sole arbitrator. As regards the prayer for permission
     to intervene in the proceedings was concerned, the same was not
     granted by the learned Judge principally on the ground that such
     intervention was sought by RG, a non-signatory to the MoU/FSD.
     Arbitration Petition No.1010 of 2022 as well as OMP(I) (COMM)
     No. 198 of 2023 came to be disposed of accordingly.
4.   On 05.08.2024, two non-signatory companies through RG, their
     authorized representative filed I.A. No. 37567 of 2024 in the disposed
     of Section 11(6) proceedings making the following prayers:
           “It is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court:
                1.   Allow this present application of the Intervenor
                     to permit the intervenor in the arbitration
                     proceedings or to be present in the Arbitration
                     Proceedings.
                2.   Revive the intervention application of the
                     Intervenor as concession given by the parties
                     in the arbitration is being violated by themselves
                3.   Direct the Arbitrator to let the intervenor to
                     have the access of all pleadings before the Ld.
                     Arbitrator, the orders passed by the Ld. Arbitrator
                     in the present arbitration proceedings and also of
                     the arbitration award passed by the Ld. Arbitrator
                     in the present arbitration proceedings.
                4.   Any such order which the Court may deem fit
                     and in the interest of justice.”
142                                                          [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       A similar application being I.A. No.39500 of 2024 seeking permission
       to intervene was also filed by RG and nine other non-signatory
       companies. Besides the prayer for intervention, a prayer for recall
       of the order dated 22.03.2024 appointing a sole arbitrator was also
       made.
5.     The prayer made by the non-signatory intervenors in I.A. No.35767
       of 2024 to remain present in the arbitral proceedings was considered
       by the learned Judge. On 07.08.2024, the learned Judge permitted
       the non-signatory intervenors to be present, either personally or
       through counsel during the course of arbitration.
6.     Thereafter, on 12.11.2024 the various applications as filed were
       considered. Insofar as the prayer made for recall of the order dated
       22.03.2024 was concerned, the learned Judge held that he was
       not inclined to recall or review the said order as it was passed by
       another learned Judge. Insofar as the prayer for issuing various
       directions as made by RG and the other non-signatory companies
       was concerned, it was held that RG could remain present in all future
       proceedings before the sole arbitrator. The order dated 07.08.2024
       was made absolute. It was further directed that properties belonging
       to the intervenor companies mentioned in Annexure A and B of
       the submissions filed by RG would remain outside the process of
       arbitration and that the arbitral proceedings qua properties mentioned
       in Annexure B would be limited to 77% thereof.
7.     The parties to the arbitration proceedings, namely PG and KG are
       aggrieved by the aforesaid directions issued by the learned Judge
       on 12.11.2024 and have thus challenged the same in these appeals.
8.     Mr. C. Aryama Sundaram and Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocates
       in support of the appeals submitted that the learned Judge had
       no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the interim applications
       moved by the non-signatories to the MoU/FSD after disposal of the
       proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Act. After the application
       filed under Section 11(6) of the Act was decided on 22.03.2024, the
       Court became functus officio and thus had no jurisdiction to entertain
       the applications as filed. Referring to the provisions of Section 35 of
       the Act, it was urged that the arbitral award that was to be passed
       in the arbitration proceedings would bind only the parties to the
       arbitration proceedings and persons claiming under said parties.
       Since the intervenors were not parties to the MoU/FSD, they would
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        143

      Kamal Gupta & Anr. v. M/s L.R Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc.


     not be bound by the award that was to be passed. The direction
     as issued in the impugned order permitting the non-signatories to
     remain present in the arbitration proceedings therefore was without
     jurisdiction. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions in
     Nimet Resources Inc. & Anr. v. Essar Steels Ltd., (2009) 17 SCC
     313 and In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under
     the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp
     Act, 1899, 2023 INSC 1066. It was further submitted that though the
     learned Judge held that the prayer for recall or review of the order
     dated 22.03.2024 was not being entertained, he in fact, proceeded
     to re-consider the entire matter and issue additional directions.
     The original order dated 22.03.2024 was referred to in detail and
     that order formed the basis of the impugned directions as issued.
     It having been held by the earlier order dated 22.03.2024 that the
     intervenors had no right to urge their prayers in said proceedings, the
     impugned direction permitting RG to remain present in the arbitration
     proceedings amounted to granting relief that was refused earlier. On
     this count, it was urged that the impugned order was liable to be set
     aside as being without jurisdiction.
9.   It was then submitted that permitting a non-signatory to the MoU/
     FSD as well as non-party to the arbitration proceedings to remain
     present during the course of the arbitration proceedings was beyond
     the provisions of the Act. If a non-signatory was not to be bound by
     the arbitral award that was to be passed, there was no justification
     whatsoever to permit such non-signatory to remain present during
     the arbitral hearings. Reference was made to the provisions of
     Section 42A of the Act to urge that such direction breached the
     principle of confidentiality. The impugned direction also affected the
     autonomy of the arbitral process and was beyond the provisions of
     the Act. The same was therefore liable to be set aside. It was further
     submitted that since the impugned order was without jurisdiction,
     various directions issued including the recognition of 23% share of
     RG in the family corpus were without jurisdiction. By granting such
     declaration, relief was granted to RG which was not permissible
     in proceedings that had been disposed of on 22.03.2024 with the
     appointment of the sole arbitrator. In fact, the impugned order had
     proceeded to review and modify the earlier order that was passed
     under Section 11(6) of the Act. On these counts, it was urged that
     the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
144                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


10. Mr. Amit Sibal and Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Advocates as
    well as Ms. Bansuri Swaraj learned Advocate for the respondents
    supported the impugned order. According to them, since it was found
    that there had been breach of the assurance given by PG and KG as
    recorded in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment dated 22.03.2024,
    the said fact gave rise to the filing of interim applications by the
    non-signatories. The undertakings as given were binding on PG
    and KG and it was not permissible for them to take contrary steps
    in that regard. It was in these facts that the intervenors had invoked
    the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
    (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). Though the prayer for recall
    of the judgment dated 22.03.2024 was made, that relief was not
    granted. The other reliefs granted permitting RG to remain present
    in the arbitration proceedings and recognising his 23% rights in
    the family properties were based on the undertaking given by the
    signatories to the MoU/FSD and thus merely a consequence of the
    judgment dated 22.03.2024. None of the directions issued in the
    impugned order could be said to be beyond the scope of the Act or
    contrary to what was held in the order passed under Section 11(6)
    of the Act. The respective rights of the parties would be worked out
    before the sole arbitrator. Since jurisdiction under Section 151 of the
    Code had been rightly invoked by the Court, there was no reason
    whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. It was thus urged
    that the appeals were liable to be dismissed.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have
    perused the relevant documentary material on record. In our
    considered view, both the questions as framed have to be answered
    in the negative.
12. In proceedings filed under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking
    appointment of an arbitrator, the respondents had made a prayer
    for intervention. The said prayer was duly considered by the learned
    Judge while appointing a sole arbitrator on 22.03.2024. While
    declining the prayer for intervention, it was specifically held that the
    apprehension expressed by the intervenors that in the proposed
    arbitration proceedings the parties would deal with the properties of
    the intervenors was misplaced. It was further observed that even if it
    was assumed that the sole arbitrator was to deal with the properties
    of the intervenors, the resultant arbitral award would not be binding
    on them. It was thus held in clear terms that the presence of the
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          145

       Kamal Gupta & Anr. v. M/s L.R Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc.


     intervenors before the sole arbitrator was not essential for adjudication
     of disputes between the parties to the MoU/FSD, namely PG and
     KG. In express terms, the intervention applications filed in the
     arbitration petition as well as similar applications filed in proceedings
     under Section 9 of the Act came to be dismissed as can be seen in
     paragraph 34 of the judgment dated 22.03.2024.
13. It is not in dispute that RG and the other intervenors are not signatories
    to the MoU/FSD that has given rise to the arbitration proceedings.
    The provisions of Section 35 of the Act are clear inasmuch as an
    award passed would only bind parties to the arbitration and persons
    claiming under them. The expression ‘party’ has been defined by
    Section 2(h) of the Act to mean a party to an arbitration agreement.
    By virtue of the order passed under Section 11(6) of the Act, the
    sole arbitrator is empowered to adjudicate the disputes between the
    signatories to the MoU/FSD. Once it is clear that the arbitral award
    would not bind non-parties to the said MoU/FSD as such parties
    were not signatories to the said documents, there would be no
    legal basis whatsoever to permit a non-signatory to the MoU/FSD to
    remain present in the proceedings before the sole arbitrator. When
    the arbitration proceedings can take place only between parties to
    an arbitration agreement and Section 35 of the Act does not make
    the arbitral award to be passed binding on non-signatories to such
    agreement, we do not find any legal right conferred by the Act that
    would enable a non-party to the agreement to remain present in
    arbitration proceedings between signatories to the agreement. It
    is not the case of any of the parties to the MoU/FSD that RG and
    the intervenors were claiming through any of them in the context of
    Section 35 of the Act. The parties to the agreement being bound by
    the terms of the agreement and the sole arbitrator being required
    to resolve the disputes between parties to the agreement, a non-
    signatory to the agreement would be a stranger to such arbitration
    proceedings. Permitting a stranger to remain present in the arbitration
    proceedings especially when the award to be passed would not
    be binding on such stranger would be charting a course unknown
    to law. The remedy, if any, to a party who is not a signatory to the
    agreement is available under Section 36 of the Act if such award is
    sought to be enforced against him.
14. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 42A
    of the Act. The arbitrator, the arbitral institution and the parties to the
146                                                          [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       arbitration agreement have to maintain confidentiality of all arbitral
       proceedings. The legislative intent behind maintaining confidentiality
       of information is quite clear. Permitting a stranger to the arbitration
       proceedings to remain present and observe the said proceedings
       would result in breach of the provisions of Section 42A of the Act.
       Even on this count the impugned order cannot be sustained.
15. We are therefore of the view that the permission granted to RG, a
    non-signatory to remain present in all proceedings before the sole
    arbitrator is without jurisdiction as well as beyond the scope of the
    Act. The first question stands answered accordingly.
16. It can be seen from the record that the application under Section
    11(6) of the Act came to be filed on 22.08.2022. The appointment of
    a sole arbitrator was sought in terms of Clause 16 of the MoU/FSD
    dated 09.07.2019. Admittedly, RG and the other intervenors were not
    parties to the aforesaid MoU/FSD and hence they were not parties
    to the application filed under Section 11(6) of the Act. RG and the
    other intervenors therefore on 13.07.2023 filed I.A. No.13282 of 2024
    with a prayer seeking permission to intervene in the proceedings
    filed under Section 11(6) of the Act.
17. It is to be noted that a separate application under Section 9 of the
    Act also came to be filed on 13.06.2023 with a prayer to restrain
    the parties to the MoU/FSD from creating any third party rights or
    from alienating the immovable properties that were subject matter
    of the MoU/FSD. In the said proceedings, a similar application came
    to be filed by RG and other intervenors seeking leave to intervene
    in those proceedings vide I.A. No.12227 of 2023. The petition filed
    under Section 11(6) of the Act bearing Arbitration Petition No.1010 of
    2022 as well as the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act bearing
    OMP(I) (COMM) No.198 of 2023 were heard and decided together
    by the learned Single Judge on 22.03.2024. Insofar as the prayer for
    appointment of an arbitrator was concerned, a retired judge of this
    Court was appointed as the sole arbitrator. Insofar as the application
    filed under Section 9 of the Act was concerned, it was directed that
    the same be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act for
    being decided by the sole arbitrator. Accordingly, Arbitration Petition
    No.1010 of 2022 and OMP(I) (COMM) No.198 of 2023 came to be
    disposed of. This would indicate that no further proceedings were
    pending on 22.03.2024 after disposal of the same.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        147

      Kamal Gupta & Anr. v. M/s L.R Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc.


18. It appears from the record that much thereafter on 05.08.2024,
    RG and other intervenors herein filed I.A. No.37567 of 2024 in the
    disposed of proceedings seeking permission to remain present in the
    arbitration proceedings. A similar application seeking permission to
    intervene was also filed in OMP(I)(COMM) No.198 of 2023. Besides
    the prayer for intervention, a prayer for recall of the order dated
    22.03.2024 was also made by virtue of I.A. No.39500 of 2024.
19. In this regard, it may be stated that when the application filed
    under Section 11(6) of the Act came to be decided on 22.03.2024
    and Arbitration Petition No.1010 of 2022 came to be disposed of,
    there was no question of entertaining any prayer for permission to
    intervene in the arbitration proceedings. The sole arbitrator having
    been appointed by virtue of the power conferred by Section 11(6) of
    the Act on 22.03.2024, the Court did not have any further jurisdiction
    to entertain a fresh application with a prayer for permission to remain
    present in the arbitration proceedings. In our view, Interim Application
    No.37567 of 2024 preferred by the respondents in the disposed
    proceedings was not liable to be entertained since the Court had
    become functus officio on the conclusion of the proceedings filed
    under Section 11(6) of the Act to consider such prayer. This aspect
    goes to the root of the matter and it is evident that the learned Judge
    committed an error in entertaining the Interim Application with a
    prayer for intervention much after disposal of the main proceedings
    in which the sole arbitrator was appointed.
20. It can be gathered from the order dated 07.08.2024 that RG and
    other non-signatories were aggrieved by the action of the signatories
    in dealing with one of the properties that was the subject matter of
    the undertaking given by them. Assuming the apprehension of RG
    and other non-signatories to be bonafide, we do not find that it can
    justify the direction to permit a non-signatory to remain present in
    the arbitration proceedings. It must be stated that the learned Judge
    was cognizant of the fact that the Act does not envisage an observer
    in arbitral proceedings as can be seen from the observations in
    paragraph 19 of the order dated 07.08.2024. Despite that, such
    permission has been granted. The direction, even if well-intentioned,
    does not have any statutory support.
21. The matter can be viewed from another angle. Section 5 of the Act
    restricts the extent of judicial intervention making it permissible only
148                                                            [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       where it is so provided in Part-I of the Act. In paragraph 80, the
       Constitution Bench in Re: Interplay (supra) held as under:
            “80. Section 5 has two facets — positive and negative.
            The positive facet vests judicial authorities with jurisdiction
            over arbitral proceedings in matters expressly allowed in or
            dealt with under Part I of the Arbitration Act. The flip side
            to this approach is that judicial authorities are prohibited
            from intervening in arbitral proceedings in situations where
            the Arbitral Tribunal has been bestowed with exclusive
            jurisdiction. This is the negative facet of Section 5. The non
            obstante clause limits the extent of judicial intervention in
            respect of matters expressly provided under the Arbitration
            Act. [Secur Industries Ltd. v. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.
            Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 447] In Bhaven Construction v. Sardar
            Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 75, a Bench
            of three Judges of this Court observed that the
                 “non obstante clause is provided to uphold the
                 intention of the legislature as provided in the
                 Preamble to adopt UNICITRAL Model Law and
                 Rules, to reduce excessive judicial interference
                 which is not contemplated under the Arbitration
                 Act.”
       It was further observed that every provision of the Act ought to be
       construed in view of Section 5 to give true effect to the legislative
       intention of minimal judicial intervention.
22. The Constitution Bench further held that the Act is a self-contained
    Code with regard to matters dealing with appointment of arbitrators,
    commencement of arbitration, making of an award and challenges to
    the arbitral award as well as execution of such awards. In paragraph
    85, it was stated as under:
            “85. The Arbitration Act is a self-contained code inter
            alia with respect to matters dealing with appointment of
            arbitrators, commencement of arbitration, making of an
            award and challenges to the arbitral award, as well as
            execution of such awards. [Pasl Wind Solutions (P) Ltd. v.
            GE Power Conversion (India) (P) Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 1;
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                         149

      Kamal Gupta & Anr. v. M/s L.R Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc.


           Kandla Export Corpn. v. OCI Corpn., (2018) 14 SCC
           715 When a self-contained code sets out a procedure,
           the applicability of a general legal procedure would be
           impliedly excluded. [Subal Paul v. Malina Paul, (2003) 10
           SCC 361] Being a self-contained and exhaustive code on
           arbitration law, the Arbitration Act carries the imperative
           that what is permissible under the law ought to be
           performed only in the manner indicated, and not otherwise.
           Accordingly, matters governed by the Arbitration Act such
           as the arbitration agreement, appointment of arbitrators
           and competence of the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its
           jurisdiction have to be assessed in the manner specified
           under the law. The corollary is that it is not permissible
           to do what is not mentioned under the Arbitration Act.
           Therefore, provisions of other statutes cannot interfere
           with the working of the Arbitration Act, unless specified
           otherwise.”
23. It thus becomes clear that firstly, the sole arbitrator having been
    appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act on 22.03.2024, nothing
    further was required to be done in exercise of jurisdiction under
    Section 11(6) thereafter. The prayer made by RG and other intervenors
    to permit them to remain present in the arbitration proceedings before
    the sole arbitrator was not liable to be entertained as such request
    went beyond the scope of Section 11(6) of the Act. The provisions
    of Section 151 of the Code could not have been invoked in this
    regard. Further, the Court had become functus officio after the sole
    arbitrator was appointed and the proceedings under Section 11(6)
    of the Act had been disposed of. Even the spirit of Section 5 of the
    Act precluded the Court from entertaining such request which does
    not find place in Part-I of the Act. Moreover, the impugned direction
    runs counter to Section 42A of the Act. The second question stands
    answered accordingly.
24. For all the aforesaid reasons, in our view the applications filed by RG
    and other non-signatory companies in the disposed of proceedings
    were misconceived. The attempt on their behalf to re-open the
    proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law. The
    applications deserved outright rejection. The learned Judge erred
    in entertaining the same on merits.
150                                                      [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


25. Accordingly, the order dated 12.11.2024 passed on the various interim
    applications is set aside. The parties to the present proceedings
    are free to work out their rights in accordance with the order dated
    22.03.2024. The appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms. The
    respondents shall pay costs quantified at Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees
    Three Lakhs) to the Supreme Court Advocates On-Record Association
    within a period of two weeks.

       Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey