A non-signatory may invoke arbitration upon a prima facie showing it is a veritable party.

Respondent No. 1 purchased a flat in the “Fortune Township” project under a 2011 conveyance that incorporated a 2010 deed of declaration.

The declaration provided for a developer-promoted maintenance body and contained an arbitration clause covering disputes relating to maintenance and management.

The petitioner, which claimed to have been engaged by the developer to maintain the complex, sought recovery of common-area maintenance charges and invoked the arbitration clause.

Respondent No. 1 disputed the petitioner’s authority and its status as a party to the arbitration agreement, and also raised limitation and other objections.

After the parties failed to agree on the constitution of the tribunal, the petitioner applied under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

1. Whether the petitioner, although a non-signatory to the conveyance and deed of declaration, had made out a prima facie case of being a veritable party entitled to invoke their arbitration agreement.

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim for maintenance charges should be referred to arbitration despite the respondent’s objections concerning the petitioner’s authority and limitation.

3. Whether an independent sole arbitrator should be appointed after the parties failed to agree on the constitution of the tribunal.

Under Sections 11(6-A), 2(1)(h), 7 and 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the referral court conducts a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement; “party” may include a non-signatory whose consent to be bound is indicated by its conduct and relationship with the signatories.

Applying Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd., Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel, In re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spg. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. BCL Secure Premises (P) Ltd., the court must be prima facie satisfied that the non-signatory is a veritable party; relevant factors include mutual intent, relationship with signatories, commonality of subject matter, the composite nature of the transaction, and positive, direct and substantial participation in performance.

A mere commercial connection is insufficient, but disputed factual questions concerning ultimate jurisdiction should ordinarily be left to the tribunal under Section 16 rather than decided through a mini-trial at the referral stage.

The conveyance made the deed of declaration part of the parties’ contractual arrangement, and the declaration expressly contemplated a maintenance body with responsibility for maintenance and charges; its arbitration clause covered maintenance and management disputes.

The petitioner relied on its engagement by the developer, its performance of maintenance under the contemplated scheme, the assignment of enforcement rights, and the respondent’s alleged payments to it.

Taken together, these materials established prima facie that the petitioner was not an absolute stranger and had participated directly and substantially in the relevant contractual performance.

The respondent’s challenges to the petitioner’s status and continuing authority raised disputed factual matters for the tribunal.

The claim, concerning bills raised between 2024 and 2026 with arbitration invoked in April 2026, was not ex facie time-barred; remaining limitation and claim-related objections were left open.

The petition under Section 11 was allowed, and Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Advocate, was appointed sole arbitrator, subject to the statutory disclosure and independence requirements.

All questions, including jurisdiction, arbitrability, maintainability and limitation, were left open for determination by the tribunal under Section 16.