ASF BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED versus SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1565 · Decided: 02-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 21 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1565 : 2025 INSC 616
ASF Buildtech Private Limited 
v. 
Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited 
(Civil Appeal No. 5823 of 2025)
02 May 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether an arbitral tribunal has the authority or power to implead 
or join a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement as a party to 
the arbitration proceedings.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Whether an arbitral 
tribunal has the authority or power to implead or join a 
non-signatory to the arbitration agreement as a party to the 
arbitration proceedings:
Held: Arbitral Tribunal has the authority and power to implead 
Non-Signatories to the arbitration agreement on its own accord. 
[Paras 109-168]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Whether the Arbitral 
Tribunal have the power to implead a non-signatory to the 
Arbitration Agreement – Contradictory views of different High 
Courts on the subject – Significant change after the decision 
of a five Judge Bench of this Court in Cox and Kings (I):
Held: Even after the decision of this Court in Chloro Controls 
allowing non-signatories to an arbitration agreement to be referred 
and enjoined to arbitration on the basis of their conduct, role, and 
involvement in the underlying contract, the High Courts consistently 
held that such power to refer or implead a non-signatory was only 
available to the courts and not to the arbitral tribunals – It is only 
after the decision of this Court in Cox and Kings (I), that the position 
of law as regards the power of an arbitral tribunal to implead a 
non-signatory underwent a significant change, whereby many High 
Courts which had earlier refused to recognize such power of the 
arbitral tribunal, came around to recognizing it. [Para 28]
* Author
1566
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Evolution of the law on 
referral or joinder of Non-Signatories to arbitration proceedings 
and the Aversion to the power of Arbitral Tribunals to implead 
a Non-Signatory – Discussed. [Paras 29- 40]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Decision of Cox 
and Kings (I) and the Judicial Rectification of the first 
misconception by Chloro Controls:
Held: Cox and Kings (I) held that the approach adopted by Chloro 
Controls, so far as infusing or reading the doctrine of ‘Group of 
Companies’ into the expression “a party to an arbitration agreement 
or any person claiming through or under him” is concerned, was 
incorrect – Cox and Kings (I) made a significant shift from the 
original understanding and legal basis of the doctrine of ‘group of 
companies’ and other allied principles of determining mutual consent 
in Chloro Controls – It held that the legal basis for the application 
of the ‘Group of Companies’ doctrine lies in the very definitions of 
“party” and “arbitration agreement” under Section(s) 2(1)(h) and 
Section 7, respectively, and not in the expression “claiming through 
or under” in Section(s) 8 and 45 of the Act, 1996 – Since both the 
aforesaid provisions i.e. Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the 
Act, 1996 are not confined in their scope to either the courts or 
the arbitral tribunal, and rather exists ubiquitously on the statute 
book and is common or indifferent to both the courts and arbitral 
tribunals, there cannot be any gainsaying that even the arbitral 
tribunal now after the decision of Cox and Kings (I) could be 
said to be clothed with the power to take recourse to the various 
principles for determining mutual consent, and thereby implead 
a non-signatory to the arbitration, if such person is found to be 
bound to the arbitration agreement. [Paras 42, 44, 46]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Decision of Krish 
Spinning and the Judicial Rectification of the second 
misconception emanating from SBP & Co.:
Held: The understanding which stemmed from SBP Co. was that 
the referral courts were required to conduct mini trials and indulge 
in the appreciation of evidence on the aforesaid issues, even 
though they were inextricably linked with the substantive merits of 
the subject-matter – However, with the subsequent developments, 
particularly in light of two key decisions of this Court being In Re: 
Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and 
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
1567
ASF Buildtech Private Limited v.  
Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited
Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.