HPCL vs BCL: The Supreme Court’s Clarion Call on Arbitral Privity

Introduction

The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v BCL Secure Premises Pvt Ltd.”[i], dated 9 December 2025 constitutes a critical and significant reconsideration of the initial principles through which arbitration is to be conducted in reference to the “Arbitration and Conciliation Act”, 1996 (Act 1996) especially in the regards of non-signatory involvement and the jurisdictional examination that is to be evaluated at the “Section 11”[ii].The judgment reasonably curtails attempts by third parties and assignee’s to invoke arbitration clauses in the absence of demonstrable consent or privity, while also clarifying the contours of the referral court’s prima facie examination following the evolving jurisprudence on competence and non-signatory doctrines.

The Supreme Court affirms party autonomy as the fundamental principle of arbitration and warns of an extravagant interpretation of the doctrines, including the group of companies and veritable party theories, by overturning the decision by the Bombay High Court, which ordered an arbitrator to be appointed at the request of a non-signatory sub-vendor.

Factual Background

The “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited” (HPCL) issued a tender for the designing, supplying, installing, and post commissioning support of a “Tank Truck Locking System”. The tender conditions specifically prohibited subletting, subcontracting or assignment of the contract or any interest in the same, without the prior written consent of HPCL and included a detailed arbitration clause to apply in cases of dispute between HPCL and the successful bidder.

The contract was awarded to Ms AGC Networks Ltd (subsequently known as Black Box Limited). Several years after the project began, there were performance and functionality disputes, and thereafter, HPCL had given notices saying they were unsatisfied with the performance. Unknown to HPCL at the contractual stage, AGC had entered into a back-to-back agreement with BCL Secure Premises Pvt Ltd, under which at the time of the contract, BCL had assumed hefty execution liabilities as a sub vendor with AGC acting as an intermediary.

Upon deterioration of relations between AGC and BCL, the latter initiated multiple proceedings against AGC, including civil suits, insolvency proceedings and claims before the MSME Facilitation Council, all of which either failed or were withdrawn pursuant to a settlement. Subsequently, in October 2023, AGC and BCL entered into a settlement cum assignment agreement purporting to assign AGC’s receivables from HPCL to BCL.

With this task in hand, BCL forwarded a notice pursuant to arbitration against HPCL directly and thereafter, it filed a petition under “Section 11(4)”[iii] before the Bombay High Court requesting it to appoint an arbitrator. HPCL appealed based on the non-existence, invalid assignment, no consent to subletting or assignment and non-arbitral. The matter was, however, referred to the arbitration by the High Court, under which the arbitral tribunal was instructed to determine arbitrarily as a preliminary issue.This order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

The issues before the Honourable Supreme Court were, firstly, whether, on the facts of the case, the Honourable High Court was enough justified in referring the parties to arbitration under “Section 11” of the Act and secondly, this necessarily involved the determination of whether a non-signatory assignee could be treated as a genuine party to the arbitration agreement between HPCL and AGC, and the extent of scrutiny permissible at the referral stage.

Arguments on Behalf of Appellant

The counsel on behalf of the Appellant argued that the “Section 11” petition was untenable due to the absence of any arbitral or contractual relationship with BCL. The tender and contract excluded subletting or assignment without HPCL’s written consent, which was never obtained, rendering any arrangement between AGC and BCL purely private and incapable of binding HPCL. HPCL maintained that the settlement–cum–assignment agreement at most transferred receivables and could not amount to novation or assignment of the underlying contract or arbitration clause. Relying on the distinction between assignment of rights and substitution of parties, HPCL stressed that arbitration cannot be imposed on a non-consenting party. It further contended that the High Court erred in referring the dispute mechanically and, in light of “Cox and Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd.”[iv], was obliged to conduct a prima facie inquiry into whether BCL could be treated as a party to the arbitration agreement. Given the evident lack of consent and privity, the petition ought to have been rejected at the threshold.

Arguments on Behalf of Respondent

The counsel on behalf of the respondent asserted that it was not a mere subcontractor but the principal performing entity, and that HPCL was fully aware of and acquiesced in its role through correspondence, operational coordination and escrow arrangements. It argued that AGC was only an intermediary and that, following the settlement–cum–assignment agreement, BCL had effectively stepped into AGC’s shoes and could invoke the arbitration clause as a party claiming through or under the original signatory. Invoking the group of companies doctrine and the veritable party principle, BCL submitted that strict privity is no longer decisive in modern arbitration law. It further contended that HPCL’s objections raised disputed and mixed questions of fact and law that should be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16, consistent with the competence principle. Denial of reference, according to BCL, would cause grave injustice and run contrary to India’s pro-arbitration policy, which favours referral where arbitrability is arguable.

Decision and Reasoning

The Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Hon’ble High Court’s order. Drawing extensively from the Constitution Bench decision in “Cox and Kings Limited v SAP India Private Limited”, the Court reiterated that while referral courts must ordinarily adopt a hands off approach, they are nevertheless required to prima facie examine whether an arbitration agreement exists and whether a non-signatory can plausibly be regarded as a veritable party.

Applying this standard, the Court determined that even a prima facie case of being a veritable party to the arbitration contract was not proven by BCL. The contractual records showed that both HPCL and BCL were operating in different planes and no indication showed that they had any intention to form a legal relationship or to bind HPCL to BCL. The Court emphasized that the fact that commercial involvement or one party fulfilling obligations occurs under a sub-contractual arrangement and not consent to arbitrate.

In addition to these authorities, the Court’s reasoning resonates with the Constitution Bench reference in “In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[v] and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2023)”[vi], which conclusively held that non stamping or insufficient stamping of the underlying contract does not render the arbitration agreement itself void ab initio and that such defects are curable at the stage of impounding. Although the issue of stamp duty did not directly arise in HPCL v BCL, the present judgment is doctrinally aligned with that reference in so far as it reinforces the referral court’s obligation to examine threshold jurisdictional objections without embarking upon an adjudication on the merits. Together, these decisions underscore that while technical objections such as stamping are not to be used to derail arbitral references, structural objections rooted in absence of consent or privity strike at the very existence of arbitral jurisdiction and must be judicially filtered at the outset.

The conceptual similarity of the Court approach is also in line with the case of “SBI General Insurance Company Limited v Krish Spinning”[vii] where the Supreme Court affirmed that the scrutiny on the referral stage should not be roving on contractual disputes but instead should look at the existence and bindingness of the contract via the arbitration agreement. That ruling, as does the current one, is an indication of judicial prudence against either extreme; an extreme of excessive abstinence in the name of arbitral autonomy, on the one hand, and an extreme of intrusive review upon the merits, on the other.

Notably, the Court dismissed the argument that the assigning of the receivables allowed BCL to resort to arbitration. The Court relied and re-edited the classical principles that were clearly defined in “Khardah Company Ltd v Raymon and Co”[viii] to affirm that in the absence of novation, it is not possible to assign and impose contractual rights and arbitration agreements to a non-consenting party. The assignment agreement between AGC and BCL had been found to be unable to transfer arbitral privity to HPCL.

The Court additionally warned against the excessive interpretation of “ASF Buildtech v Shapoorji Pallonji”[ix], making it clear that though complicated factual matters can justify the grounds of leaving some of the questions to the arbitral tribunal, the referral courts are not turned into automatons. In the instances where the lack of consent and privity is visible on the very face of the record, the court is obliged to refuse reference.

This is a noteworthy development of a doctrine. It confirms that the Indian arbitration law has taken a middle ground between excessive judicial abstinence and excessive judicial review of merits to ensure that referral courts become constitutional gatekeepers without compromising the autonomy of the arbitral process. By so doing the Supreme Court has provided much requested clarity to multi-party and subcontracting arrangements that are complex, especially in the case of public procurement, where the stacked contractual arrangements are the rule and not the exception.

Analysis

The ruling constitutes a significant re-setting of the pendulum between the light judicial treatment and the significant jurisdictional review on the “Section 11” stage. Although the recent jurisprudence was justified in focusing on competence and on arbitral autonomy, the reasoning of the Supreme Court reminds that the two principles assumes the presence of an existing arbitration agreement between the parties before the tribunal. By not agreeing to the invocation of arbitration via assignment and subcontracting, the Court maintains the consensual nature of arbitration and avoids its conversion into a non-consensual adjudication tribunal of non-consenting parties. The ruling is also a correction on the trends of some decisions of the High Court to automatically have disputes adjudicated by arbitration because it is assumed that arbitrability may always be resolved under “Section 16”[x].

Doctrinally, the judgment is a way of defining boundaries of the set of companies and veritable party doctrines and the judgment restates that they are extraordinary tools that rely on intention and action and are not used to evade a contractual prohibition or rewrite business deals. By so doing, the Court provides a better legal certainty to the undertakings of the public sector and commercial undertakings alike, especially the large-scale procurement contracts where sub-vendor arrangements are functional but highly regulated.

Conclusion

The decision of “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v BCL Secure Premises Pvt Ltd” stands as a strong reaffirmation of the party autonomy, consent and privity in the case of Indian arbitration law. The decision makes clear that performance by way of back-to-back arrangements and assignment of receivables alone cannot bring about arbitral rights against a non-consenting party. Through attracting principled boundaries to non-signatory dogmas, and strengthening the referential position of referral courts, the Supreme Court makes sure that arbitration is a product of consent, and not coercion.

---

[i] Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v BCL Secure Premises Pvt Ltd[2025] SCC OnLine SC 2746

[ii] The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 11

[iii] The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 11(4)

[iv] Cox and Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd[2024] 4 SCC 1

[v] The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

[vi] The Indian Stamp Act, 1899

[vii] SBI General Insurance Company Limited v Krish Spinning [2024] 12 SCC 1 114

[viii] Khardah Company Ltd v Raymon and Co. [1963] 3 SCR 183

[ix] ASF Buildtech v Shapoorji Pallonji [2025] 9 SCC 76

[x] The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 16

Author(s)