Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 14 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Manash Kamal Bezboruah; Respondents – M/s Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited (Respondent No. 1), M/s Kasojan Tea Company Private Limited (Respondent No. 2), M/s Bokahola Investment Private Limited (Respondent No. 3), and other partners/legal representatives (Respondents No. 4‑15).
  • Procedural History: The dispute originated from a Title Suit (No. 38 of 2012) filed by the Appellant in the Jorhat Civil Court seeking accounts and damages for alleged mismanagement. Respondent No. 7 filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking referral to arbitration. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that several defendants were non‑signatories to the arbitration clause. The High Court upheld this rejection (order dated 01‑11‑2021). The Appellant then filed SLP(C) No. 10445 of 2022, which the Supreme Court, by consent order dated 21‑11‑2024, referred the disputes to arbitration and appointed Justice (Retd.) B.P. Katakey as Sole Arbitrator.
  • Arbitration Proceedings: The Tribunal issued notice on 23‑01‑2025. The Appellant filed Statement of Claim on 09‑03‑2025; Respondents 5‑7 filed Statement of Defence on 05‑05‑2025. Respondents 1‑3 filed applications under Order VII Rule 11, Order I Rule 10(2) and CPC Section 151 seeking deletion of their names as they were non‑signatories. The Tribunal framed issues on 09‑06‑2025, including maintainability of arbitration against non‑signatories and validity of Clause 5 of the partnership deed.
  • Tribunal Order (04‑08‑2025): Rejected the deletion applications, holding that the Supreme Court’s consent order left no scope for the Tribunal to reconsider the applicability of the “Group of Companies” doctrine to non‑signatories.
  • High Court Intervention: Respondents 1‑3 filed Civil Revision Petition (CRP/120/2025) under Article 227. The Gauhati High Court stayed the arbitration notices (interim order dated 02‑09‑2025) and later, on 28‑01‑2026, rejected the Appellant’s objection to the maintainability of the revision petition, holding that the Tribunal’s order suffered from a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction.
  • Supreme Court’s Interim Orders: On 16‑02‑2026, the Supreme Court condoned delay, issued notice, and stayed both High Court orders. On 19‑03‑2026, it allowed an application by Respondents 1‑3 for adjournment beyond 20‑04‑2026 and directed the Arbitrator to consider the request.

Legal Analysis

  • The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing Section 5’s non‑obstante clause limiting judicial interference, and Section 16’s kompetenz‑kompetenz principle granting tribunals authority to decide their own jurisdiction.
  • It reiterated that High Courts retain constitutional supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, but this cannot be exercised to overturn arbitral orders unless there is a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, as clarified in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., Deep Industries Ltd., and Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. cases.
  • The Court held that the High Court’s interference was not justified because the Tribunal’s order did not exhibit a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction; the correct remedy is a challenge under Section 34 after the award.
  • The Court also noted that Respondents 1‑3, having been parties to the earlier Supreme Court‑appointed arbitration, could not now claim they were not “veritable parties” without having raised the issue earlier.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside both impugned High Court orders (02‑09‑2025 and 28‑01‑2026) and dismissed the revision petition.
  • It directed the arbitral tribunal to independently determine the status of Respondents 1‑3 (non‑signatories) and to complete the arbitration proceedings without further judicial interference.
  • All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Topics: Arbitration, Article 227 Jurisdiction