{"id":342416,"date":"2025-02-27T15:00:01","date_gmt":"2025-02-27T09:30:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=342416"},"modified":"2025-03-03T11:54:01","modified_gmt":"2025-03-03T06:24:01","slug":"powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n

“It bids us to remember benefits rather than injuries, and benefits received rather than benefits conferred; to be patient when we are wronged; to settle a dispute by negotiation and not by force; to prefer arbitration to litigation — for an arbitrator goes by the equity of a case, a judge by the strict law, and arbitration was invented with the express purpose of securing full power for equity.”1<\/sup><\/a> As expressed by the great Greek philosopher, arbitration stems from the principle of equity and compromise but over the years it has become more complex leading to many judicial interference and scrutiny.<\/p>\n

The purpose and purport of appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11<\/a>2<\/sup><\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a><\/span>3<\/sup><\/a> was to show the flexibility and the morale of how the Arbitration Code was enacted. It provides parties the autonomy to decide on a procedure for appointment of arbitrator when the parties cannot come to a mutual decision in appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators and if mutual appointment of arbitration fails, an application under Section 11(6) of the Act can be availed by the either parties to take assistance from the court for the appointment of arbitrator or arbitrators.<\/p>\n

Section 11(6) enlists three possible defects in the appointment procedure, namely: first, a party fails to act as required by the agreed procedure; second, the parties or the two appointed arbitrators, fail to reach an agreement expected of them under that procedure; or third, a person, including an institution, fails to perform any function entrusted to them or under the agreed procedure.4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) by the competent court since the enactment of the Act has undergone ample of judicial scrutiny and criticism, by way of many amendments and the precedents laid down from time to time, the true nature of the provision has been adequately settled.<\/p>\n

The issue that has often arisen under Section 165<\/sup><\/a> of the Act is that — Whether the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 has its jurisdiction to add or delete a party when that party has already been added or deleted at the referral stage by the competent court under Section 11(6) of the Act.<\/span><\/p>\n

Pre-amendment of 2015<\/h2>\n

The precedents laid down pre-amendment of 2015 gave the referral court ample of power to decide the appointment of arbitrator or arbitrators in depth. In Konkan Rly. Corpn. Ltd.<\/span> v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd.<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a>, a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed that the power exercised by the referral court under Section 11 of the Act is an administrative power and thus the Chief Justice or his designate do not have the power to decide any preliminary issue at the referral stage. This was later overruled in SBP & Co.<\/span> v. Patel Engg. Ltd.<\/span>7<\/sup><\/a> wherein a seven-Judge Bench held that the appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act was not only an administrative power but also a judicial power as well. The Chief Justice or his designate had the power to decide all preliminary issues at the referral stage under Section 11(6) of the Act. The Supreme Court took such view on the premise that Section 16 of the Act, 1996, which empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, applies only when the parties go before the Tribunal without having taken recourse to Section 8<\/a> or Section 11<\/a> respectively of the Act, 1996<\/a> first.<\/p>\n

Then in National Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd.<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court examined the extent of judicial interference at the referral stage under Section 11(6) of the Act as laid down in Patel Engg.<\/span>9<\/sup><\/a> and elucidated three categories of issues which could arise before the referral court as follows:<\/p>\n

22.1.<\/span> (a<\/span>) The issues (first category) which the Chief Justice\/his designate will have to decide are: Whether the party making the application has approached the appropriate High Court, whether there is an arbitration agreement and whether the party who has applied under Section 11 of the Act, is a party to such an agreement.<\/p>\n

22.2.<\/span> (b<\/span>) The issues (second category) which the Chief Justice\/his designate may choose to decide (or leave them to the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal) are: Whether the claim is a dead (long-barred) claim or a live claim. Whether the parties have concluded the contract\/transaction by recording satisfaction of their mutual rights and obligation or by receiving the final payment without objection.<\/p>\n

22.3.<\/span> (c<\/span>) The issues (third category) which the Chief Justice\/his designate should leave exclusively to the Arbitral Tribunal are: Whether a claim made falls within the arbitration clause (as for example, a matter which is reserved for final decision of a departmental authority and excepted or excluded from arbitration) and merits or any claim involved in the arbitration.10<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Post-amendment of 2015<\/h2>\n

The decisions of the Supreme Court in Patel Engg.<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a> and Boghara Polyfab<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a> conferred the referral courts the discretion to conduct mini-trials and indulge in the appreciation of evidence on the issues concerned with the subject-matter of arbitration. This allowed for greater judicial interference at the pre-arbitral stage. The Law Commission of India in its 246th Law Report13<\/sup><\/a> took note of the issue of delay of arbitration proceedings by significant judicial intervention especially during the referral stage under Section 11(6) of the Act and considered changes by way of amendment in 2015.14<\/sup><\/a> The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a> minimalised the judicial interference at the referral stage by incorporating Section 11(6-A)<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a> where the competent court at the referral stage was to confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement<\/span>.16<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Justice Kurian Joseph in Duro Felguera SA<\/span> v. Gangavaram Port Ltd.<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a> held that:<\/p>\n

59.<\/span> The scope of the power under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was considerably wide in view of the decisions in SBP & Co.<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a> and Boghara Polyfab<\/span>19<\/sup><\/a>. This position continued till the amendment brought about in 2015. After the amendment, all that the courts need to see is whether an arbitration agreement exists—nothing more, nothing less. The legislative policy and purpose is essentially to minimise the Court’s intervention at the stage of appointing the arbitrator and this intention as incorporated in Section 11(6-A) ought to be respected.<\/p>\n

The above decision was affirmed in Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Pradyuat Deb Burman<\/span>20<\/sup><\/a>, where it “confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement is to be understood in the narrow sense and the law point prior to the 2015 Amendment Act, as set forth by the decisions of this Court in<\/span> Patel Engg.21<\/sup><\/a> and<\/span> Boghara Polyfab22<\/sup><\/a>, has been legislatively overruled.”<\/span><\/p>\n

However, interestingly Section 11(6-A) was omitted vide the 2019 Amendment23<\/sup><\/a> but the omission was and still not yet notified.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia<\/span> v. Durga Trading Corpn.<\/span>24<\/sup><\/a> presumed that the omission of Section 11(6-A) vide 2019 Amendment was made effective and held that the principle laid down in Patel Engg.<\/span>25<\/sup><\/a> would become applicable post-omission. It also held that the exercise of power for interference by the referral court, only allows so in exception cases where ex facie meritless claims are sought to be referred to arbitration.<\/p>\n

In BSNL<\/span> v. Nortel Networks India (P) Ltd.<\/span>26<\/sup><\/a> it was held that,<\/p>\n

45.1. … at the referral stage the court can interfere “only” when it is “manifest” that the claims are ex facie time-barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute…. and knockdown ex facie meritless, frivolous, and dishonest litigation which would ensure expeditious and efficient disposal at the referral stage.<\/span><\/p>\n

An eye of the needle test was crystallised in NTPC Ltd.<\/span> v. SPML Infra Ltd.<\/span>27<\/sup><\/a> where the Court at the referral stage should examine the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement and the non-availability of a dispute thoroughly.<\/p>\n

However, the finding in Vidya Drolia<\/span>28<\/sup><\/a> with respect to the power of the Referral Court post-amendment and post-omission of Section 11(6-A) was found erroneous by a seven-Judge Constitutional Bench in Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> and Stamp Act 1899, In re<\/span>29<\/sup><\/a> wherein it was held that the omission of Section 11(6-A) has not yet been notified by the Central Government and therefore it was incumbent upon the Court to give true effect to the legislative intent and since Section 11(6-A) continues to remain in force, the referral court is not the appropriate forum to conduct a mini-trial by allowing the parties to adduce the evidence with regard to the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement and the courts at the referral stage should only confine to the determination of the arbitration agreement notwithstanding that even if a prima facie view as to the existence of an arbitration agreement is taken away by the referral court, it does not take away the kompetenz of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 to examine the issue in dept.<\/p>\n

Similarly, a five-Judge Constitutional Bench in Cox & Kings Ltd.<\/span> v. SAP India (P) Ltd<\/span>.30<\/sup><\/a> also while dealing with the scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act when it comes to impleading the non-signatories in the arbitration proceedings and whether the non-signatory party is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement laid down that the referral court should not delve into the complexities of the facts involved and should leave it for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide since the issue of determining parties to an arbitration agreement goes to the very root of the jurisdictional competence of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 and it should be rightly done on the basis of the factual, legal and circumstantial aspects upholding the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n

Doctrine of kompetenz<\/h2>\n

The doctrine of “kompetenz-kompetenz” under Section 16 of the Act enshrines arbitral autonomy. It empowers the Arbitral Tribunal the authority to determine its enforceability independently from the national courts and limiting judicial intervention, to this extent even Section 531<\/sup><\/a> of the Act stipulates the minimal supervisory role that the courts should play in the arbitral process and should only intervene over matters expressly and strictly permitted in the Act. Gary B. Born32<\/sup><\/a> describes arbitral autonomy as “the right of parties to resolve their disputes, with one another, in a manner of their own choosing” as “a basic aspect of individual autonomy and liberty, which is properly accorded protection in almost all developed legal systems”.<\/p>\n

Recent ruling<\/h2>\n

Thus, after numerous trials, errors and rigorous detailed interpretations by way of judgment and precedents, the law with respect to the arbitral autonomy under Section 16 of the Act and the judicial authority at the referral stage under Section 11 has been perspicaciously distinguished by a seven-Judge constitutional judgment in Interplay<\/span>33<\/sup><\/a> and on the same footing, the Supreme Court in a recent ruling in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Krish Spg<\/span>.34<\/sup><\/a> elucidated the domain of the referral court under Section 11 and that an application under Section 11(6-A) is preferred when either of the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator(s) and the court is empowered to prime facie “examine” the existence of an arbitration agreement in terms of Section 735<\/sup><\/a> of the Act. The word “examine” has a very narrow scope in terms of Section 11(6-A) and is limited to the requirement of a formal validity. It opined that “The use of the term ‘examination’ under Section 11(6-A) as distinguished from the use of the term ‘rule’ under Section 16 implies that the scope of enquiry under Section 11(6-A) is limited to a prima facie scrutiny of the existence of the arbitration agreement, and does not include a contested or laborious enquiry, which is left for the Arbitral Tribunal to ‘rule’ under Section 16. The prima facie view on existence of the arbitration agreement taken by the referral court does not bind either the Arbitral Tribunal or the court enforcing the arbitral award.”<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

In the light of the pertinent observations made in Krish Spg.<\/span>36<\/sup><\/a> and Interplay<\/span>37<\/sup><\/a> after detailed explications and elucidations, has affirmed that the scope of judicial interference under Section 11(6-A) of the Act is only confined to the limited scrutiny of “prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement nothing more and nothing else” and the kompetenz of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 confers complete arbitral autonomy to rule, determine and act on the issues pertaining to impleadment or deletion of a party, signatory or non-signatory, arbitrality or non-arbitrality, necessary or not necessary party, joinder or non-joinder to the arbitration in depth even if the ruling is contrary to that of the referral court under Section 11(6) of the Act.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Associate at Chambers of Mr Ashok Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate. Author can be reached at: asangharai@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> John Gillies (Tr.), Aristotle’s Rhetoric<\/span> (1823).<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 11<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, S. 11(6)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> (2002) 2 SCC 388<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> (2009) 1 SCC 267<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> (2009) 1 SCC 267, 283<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> (2009) 1 SCC 267<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> Law Commission of India, Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, Report No. 246 (August 2014)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a>.<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 11(6-A)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 11(6-A)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> (2017) 9 SCC 729, 765<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a>.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> (2009) 1 SCC 267<\/a>.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> (2019) 8 SCC 714<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a>.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> (2009) 1 SCC 267<\/a>.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> (2021) 2 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

25.<\/a> (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a>.<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> (2021) 5 SCC 738<\/a>.<\/p>\n

27.<\/a> (2023) 9 SCC 385<\/a>.<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> (2021) 2 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

29.<\/a> (2024) 6 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

30.<\/a> (2022) 8 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

31.<\/a> Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.<\/p>\n

32.<\/a> Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration<\/span> (Wolters Kluwer, 3rd Edn., 2021) p. 685.<\/p>\n

33.<\/a> (2024) 6 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

34.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754<\/a>.<\/p>\n

35.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

36.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754<\/a>.<\/p>\n

37.<\/a> (2024) 6 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Asangha Rai*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":342776,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[79087,79086,10131,79141,8071,79085,15491,79140],"class_list":["post-342416","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-246th-law-report","tag-act-1996","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-arbitration-code","tag-constitutional-bench","tag-greek-philosopher","tag-law-commission-of-india","tag-powers-of-arbitral-tribunal"],"yoast_head":"\nPowers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"It bids us to remember benefits rather than injuries, and benefits received rather than benefits conferred; to be patient when we are wronged\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"It bids us to remember benefits rather than injuries, and benefits received rather than benefits conferred; to be patient when we are wronged\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-02-27T09:30:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-03-03T06:24:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-1-1-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/\",\"name\":\"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-02-27T09:30:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-03T06:24:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"It bids us to remember benefits rather than injuries, and benefits received rather than benefits conferred; to be patient when we are wronged\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis | SCC Times","description":"It bids us to remember benefits rather than injuries, and benefits received rather than benefits conferred; to be patient when we are wronged","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis","og_description":"It bids us to remember benefits rather than injuries, and benefits received rather than benefits conferred; to be patient when we are wronged","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-02-27T09:30:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-03-03T06:24:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-1-1-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/","name":"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp","datePublished":"2025-02-27T09:30:01+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-03T06:24:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"It bids us to remember benefits rather than injuries, and benefits received rather than benefits conferred; to be patient when we are wronged","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":279003,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/02\/mandatory-and-directory-provisions-under-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996\/","url_meta":{"origin":342416,"position":0},"title":"Mandatory and Directory Provisions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 2, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Manavendra Mishra\u2020 and Alok Vajpeyi\u2020\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image53.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":254702,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/section-34-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":342416,"position":1},"title":"Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Whether Courts have the Power to Modify or Vary Arbitral Awards","author":"Editor","date":"September 24, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Rohan Tigadi*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120-copy.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120-copy.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120-copy.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120-copy.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120-copy.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275792,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/12\/interest-for-pre-reference-period-under-section-317a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-power-or-right\/","url_meta":{"origin":342416,"position":2},"title":"Interest For Pre-Reference Period Under Section 31(7)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act \u2014 Power or Right?","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ketan D. Parikh\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "OP. ED."","block_context":{"text":"OP. ED.","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-141-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-141-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-141-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-141-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-141-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297849,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/27\/delhi-high-court-arbitral-tribunal-authority-implead-non-signatories-arbitration-agreement\/","url_meta":{"origin":342416,"position":3},"title":"[Group of Companies Doctrine] Can non-signatories to an arbitration agreement be impleaded as a \u2018party\u2019 by the Arbitral Tribunal? Delhi High Court clarifies","author":"Arunima","date":"July 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"An Arbitral Tribunal cannot arrogate to itself powers that are neither conferred by the statute, or the rules which govern the arbitration, nor can it take recourse to inherent powers, which as has been found hereinabove, are acknowledged to inhere in courts and judicial authorities only.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256470,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/30\/exploring-the-use-of-uncitrals-arbitration-rules-and-materials-in-indian-ad-hoc-arbitrations\/","url_meta":{"origin":342416,"position":4},"title":"Exploring the Use of UNCITRAL\u2019s Arbitration Rules and Materials in Indian Ad Hoc Arbitrations","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Hasit B. Seth\u2020 Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 81","rel":"","context":"In "'Lex Mercatoria' by Hasit Seth"","block_context":{"text":"'Lex Mercatoria' by Hasit Seth","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/individual\/lex-mercatoria-by-hasit-seth\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-107.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-107.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-107.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-107.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-107.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245496,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/14\/arbitration-and-conciliation-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":342416,"position":5},"title":"Stage of consideration of objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"March 14, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shaurya Sahay\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342416","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=342416"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342416\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/342776"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=342416"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=342416"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=342416"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}