Rejection of impleadment of a non-signatory group company is appealable under Section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act.

The Petitioner (Hind Offshore) entered into two Charter Party Agreements with the Respondent (OCS Services) for offshore rigs painting

OCS Services initiated arbitration following the termination of its contract with ONGC, alleging Hind Offshore's vessels failed to meet regulatory standards

During arbitration, Hind Offshore applied to implead Planet Support Services India Private Limited (Planet Support)—a group company under common ownership with OCS Services—as a "veritable party"

Hind Offshore argued that Planet Support was involved in negotiations and performance, and that a service agreement produced to show an arm's-length relationship was fabricated

The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the impleadment application on November 19, 2025

Hind Offshore challenged this rejection under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Court applied Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers a tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, and Section 37(2)(a), which provides for appeals against orders "accepting the plea" that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction

It relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd. (2024), which established that a non-signatory can be bound by an arbitration agreement based on mutual intention inferred from conduct, though corporate separateness remains the primary rule

The Court further referenced ASF Buildtech (P) Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. (P) Ltd. (2025) regarding the appealability of impleadment decisions

The Court referenced ERA Infra Engineering Ltd. v. NHAI (2026) regarding the finality of rejecting impleadment at the threshold

On maintainability, the Court held that when a tribunal refuses impleadment on jurisdictional grounds, it effectively "accepts a plea" that it lacks jurisdiction over that third party, thus triggering the right to appeal under Section 37(2)(a)

On the merits, the Court found that while OCS Services and Planet Support shared common ownership via a Singaporean entity, the "Group of Companies" doctrine requires more than mere affiliation

The Court analyzed email correspondence and found that Planet Support's role was limited to "vendor management support" and "coordinating clerical activities," which did not demonstrate a clear intention to be bound by the arbitration agreement specifically

The Court noted that Hind Offshore failed to specify a concrete cause of action against Planet Support, and bald allegations that the service agreement was "fabricated" were insufficient to displace the finding of independent legal personality

The Court affirmed the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision, holding that Planet Support was not a veritable party to the arbitration agreement as its conduct was consistent with a support service provider rather than a primary party to the contract

The Petitioner remains free to seek Planet Support's evidence via Section 27 if approved by the Tribunal

Costs to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal