Delhi HC – IIM Jammu, a beneficiary, funding & supervisory authority, cannot be impleaded to arbitration without privity of contract or arbitration agreement
By the impugned order, the Joint Registrar added IIM Jammu, being the ultimate beneficiary, funding authority, supervisory role, quality assurance inspections and involvement in day to day decision-making process.
This Court is unable to accept that the status of an “ultimate beneficiary” can constitute the governing test for impleadment in arbitral proceedings. Arbitration, being consensual in nature, cannot be expanded to include entities solely because they derive indirect advantage or bear institutional interest in the project.
In complex infrastructure projects, multiple stakeholders may exist across several institutional layers. If all beneficiaries were to be treated as necessary parties, arbitral proceedings would lose their consensual character and be transformed Page 15 of 19 ARB.P. 1787/2025 & connected matters into sprawling multi-party disputes divorced from the contractual foundation of arbitration law.
The role envisaged for IIM Jammu remains advisory and supervisory in a limited sense, and does not translate into contractual control or privity.
CPWD had given the tender work to the petitioner. The disputes arose from the agreement executed between CPWD and the petitioner.
Judgment dated 19.2.2026 of the High Court of Delhi in ARB.P. 1787/2025 of M/s. Ramacivil India Construction Pvt Ltd Vs. Central Public Works Department with connected matters.
