JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator in Arbitraion Case No.2 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator.) 1. The third party to an Arbitration Agreement is the appellant before this Court challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal impleading the appellant herein as a party to the Arbitral proceedings initiated between the respondents herein. 2. Since there is a procedural irregularity, I do not intend to traverse into the intricate details of the dispute among the parties but I am just touching upon the facts which would be germane to disposing of this petition. 3. The 1st respondent herein had availed Financial Facilities from the 2nd respondent and had entered into a Working Capital Facility Agreement dated 27.07.2020 with the 2nd respondent. As per the terms of the said agreement any dispute between the parties under or in connection with the agreement was to be referred to the arbitration consisting of a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the lender. It appears that the 1st respondent had defaulted in the payment of the dues which prompted the 2nd respondent to issue a loan recall notice dated 26.02.2021 calling upon the 1st respondent to repay the sum of Rs.31,49,78,942.65 [Rupees Thirty-One Crores Forty Nine Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Two and paisa Sixty Five Only] which was the outstanding as on 17.02.2021. The respondent had demanded that the amount to be paid within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. However, there was no response to the said notice. 4. The 2nd respondent had therefore, approached this Court by filing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for an injunction restraining the respondent from alienating their properties and shares in various companies. On 02.08.2021 an interim injunction was granted as prayed for. The 2nd respondent thereafter filed O.P.No.60 of 2021 under Section 11 of the Act for appointing an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was also so appointed by orders of this Court. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent had filed their claim petition for the following reliefs:- "1. On 02.08.2021 an interim injunction was granted as prayed for. The 2nd respondent thereafter filed O.P.No.60 of 2021 under Section 11 of the Act for appointing an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was also so appointed by orders of this Court. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent had filed their claim petition for the following reliefs:- "1. Directing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 jointly and severalty to pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.33,44,57,682.23/- [ Rupees Thirty Three Crore Forty Four Lakh(s) Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Two and Paise Twenty Three Only} as on 17.09.2021 together with interest of 24% p.a. till the date of realization/payment thereof. 2. Directing the respondents 1, 2 & 4 jointly and severalty to pay the cost of the proceeding. 3. Grant such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." 5. The 1st respondent who had entered appearance had filed their written statement and their counter claim dated 20.12.2021 in which they had claimed a sum of Rs.13,50,00,000/- [Rupee Thirteen Crores, Firty Lakhs Only] from the 2nd respondent. Along with their counter claim, the 1st respondent herein had taken out an application invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the appellant herein as a party to the proceedings. In the application filed in support of the said petition, the 1st respondent would submit that they had entered into a Dealership Agreement with the appellant initially in the year 2011-2012 which was being periodically renewed and the last of such renewal was in November 2018. Pursuant to the agreement the 1st respondent herein was appointed as an Authorised Dealer for selling the commercial vehicles of M/s.Daimler India in various Districts in the State of Gujarat. In view of the 1st respondent entering into a Dealership Agreement with the appellant, the claimant/the 2nd respondent which is a sister concern of the appellant had provided financial assistance to the respondent. This financial assistance was provided only to enable the 1st respondent to seamlessly clear its dues to the appellant under the 1st agreement. 6. In view of the 1st respondent entering into a Dealership Agreement with the appellant, the claimant/the 2nd respondent which is a sister concern of the appellant had provided financial assistance to the respondent. This financial assistance was provided only to enable the 1st respondent to seamlessly clear its dues to the appellant under the 1st agreement. 6. It is the specific case of the 1st respondent in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the financial assistance would not have been extended by the 2nd respondent if the 1st respondent had not entered into the Dealership Agreement with the appellant herein. In other words, it is the contention of the 1st respondent that the Dealership Agreement with the appellant and the Financial Facility extended by the 2nd respondent went hand in hand. It is the further case of the 1st respondent that the relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent continued satisfactorily till the Covid -19 had set in. It appears that the appellant had forced the 1st respondent to sell vehicles at a lower rate so as to ensure that all their vehicles were sold out consequently their margins were cut down which resulted in the 1st respondent incurring losses and consequently committing default in the payment of its dues to the 2nd respondent. It is also the case of the appellant that contrary to their promise not to appoint other dealers in the same region, the appellant had breached the same. This also had a direct bearing on the income earned by the 1st respondent and consequently, the default in the payment of the dues to the 2nd respondent. 7. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons the 1st respondent sought to implead the appellant as a party to the said proceedings. In the said application no notice was issued to the appellant prior to the passing of the order impleading them as a party to the proceedings. It was only after they had been impleaded as a party to the proceedings that the notice had been ordered to them. Aggrieved by the order of the appellant/ third party is before this Court. 8. Mr.K.Harishankar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the two agreements are independent and distinct of each other. That apart, under the Dealership Agreement there is no arbitration clause like in the case of the Working Capital Facility Agreement. Aggrieved by the order of the appellant/ third party is before this Court. 8. Mr.K.Harishankar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the two agreements are independent and distinct of each other. That apart, under the Dealership Agreement there is no arbitration clause like in the case of the Working Capital Facility Agreement. He would also submit that in the light of the judgement of this Court reported in 2022 SCC Online Madras 796 - Abhibus Services India Pvt Ltd and Others Vs. Pallvan Transport Consultancies Services Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director and Another, the arbitrator is not vested with the jurisdiction to implead parties. He would also rely upon another judgement of this Court reported in 2020 SCC Online Madras 138 : AIR 2021 (NOC 206) 72 - Padam Chand Kothari Vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Another to drive across the above point. He would also submit that the judgemnet of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2013) 1 SCC 641 - Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. Vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. an Ors., would not apply in the instant case, since the agreements entered into by the 1st respondent with the appellant and with the 2nd respondent are independent of each other and it is not a case of a principal agreement and the supplementary agreement. 9. Per contra Mr.Tirth Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the transactions are intrinsically connected which is evident from the fact that the Working Capital Finance Agreement talks about a DFSI Group as also about default and set off. 10. Though extensive arguments were made by the counsels on either side, however, considering the fact that the appellants have been impleaded without notice to them and taking into account the fact that they have not been heard before the impugned orders were passed, the order of the learned. Arbitrator has to be necessarily set aside and the implead petition be considered afresh after hearing the submissions of the appellant herein as well. The arguments that are now placed before this Court could not be raised by the appellant before the learned Arbitrator as notice was not issued to them. Arbitrator has to be necessarily set aside and the implead petition be considered afresh after hearing the submissions of the appellant herein as well. The arguments that are now placed before this Court could not be raised by the appellant before the learned Arbitrator as notice was not issued to them. Had notice been issued the appellant could very well have put across their arguments which includes the argument regarding the very maintainability of the application in the light of the judgement in Abhibus Services India Pvt. Ltd., supra, as also the maintainability of an application under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. 11. In the above circumstances, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned order, allow the appeal and remit the matter back to the Arbitral Tribunal for considering the implead application afresh after receiving the counter of the proposed parties and after hearing all parties concern. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.