(a) Sukanya Holdings- The Supreme Court considers that only the signatories, through an arbitration agreement of the Supreme Court of Cheran Properties Limited v. Kasturi and Sons Limited12, added that even an arbitral award can be binding on a third party if that party is “party and person who claims them” within the meaning of Section 35 of the Act13. In this case, the arbitration holder sought the enforcement of the award against a third party who claimed that the party was a candidate of the debtor, whereas the main agreement, which is a share purchase agreement with the arbitration clause, had only been concluded between the arbitration holder and the debtor and that the arbitration procedure had been conducted only between them. The Supreme Court relied heavily on its judgment at Chloro Controls (supra) and stated: “The words” as well by the parties … Arbitration Agreement” and subject (i) of the amendment were proposed as part of the Supreme Court decision of Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya [Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H.
Pandya, (2003) 5 CSC 531] in cases where all litigants are not parties to the arbitration agreement, the reference should only be rejected if such parties are necessary [Ed. The parties to the complaint – and not if they are just parties, or are otherwise legal aliens to the lawsuit and have been added only to circumvent the arbitration agreement. The amendment provides for a two-step procedure, which must be dealt with by a judicial authority when considering an application for arbitration pending. The amendment provides that the judicial authority cannot refer the parties to arbitration only if it finds that there is no arbitration agreement or that it is null and void. If the judicial authority considers that the arbitration agreement exists prima facie, it refers the dispute to an arbitration procedure and will have the existence of the arbitration agreement definitively determined by the arbitration tribunal. However, if the judicial authority concludes that the agreement does not exist, the conclusion is final and not prima facie. The amendment also provides that it will be conclusively determined whether the arbitration agreement is inconclusive. On the basis of the above statements, the Supreme Court added that all agreements had been concluded under a single project, were inseparable and were inseparable from one of the aforementioned agreements.