The Supreme Court has held that an arbitration clause contained in a loan agreement can bind a personal guarantor where the guarantee has been expressly incorporated into the loan agreement and forms an integral part of a single composite transaction.
The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe ruled that the absence of a separate arbitration clause in the personal guarantee would not exclude the guarantor from arbitration when the contractual documents clearly demonstrate an intention to subject the guarantee to the same legal and arbitral framework as the principal loan agreement.
Buy Now: E-Handbook: Draft Replies to GST Notices On 40+ Issues
The Court observed that a guarantee expressly integrated into a loan agreement cannot remain connected to that agreement for determining liability while being severed from it solely for dispute resolution.
“A guarantee so defined and so integrated cannot be severed, for purposes of dispute resolution alone, from the very clause that governs disputes touching the rights and obligations arising under that agreement, while remaining tethered to it for every other purpose, including the extent of liability,” the Court said.
The appeal was filed by the National Skill Development Corporation against a January 28, 2026 judgment of the Delhi High Court. The High Court had affirmed an order passed by the sole arbitrator deleting the managing director and personal guarantor from the array of parties to the arbitration.
The dispute arose from a scheme formulated by the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship for establishing Model Training Centres in districts across the country under the name “Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Kendra”.
The National Skill Development Corporation, a not-for-profit company providing financial assistance to organisations engaged in skill training, was appointed as the implementing agency.
In July 2016, the Corporation invited technical and financial proposals for setting up the training centres. Surya Wires Private Limited and Disha Education Society submitted a joint proposal and were subsequently allotted districts for establishing the centres.
The parties executed a set of agreements on December 20, 2016, including a service-level agreement, a loan agreement for approximately Rs.7.17 crore and several ancillary facility agreements. These included a deed of assignment, deed of hypothecation, irrevocable power of attorney, undertaking-cum-declaration and personal guarantee.
The managing director of Surya Wires executed the personal guarantee on December 27, 2016.
A second, materially identical set of agreements was entered into on August 18, 2017 for an additional loan of approximately Rs.2.13 crore. The managing director again furnished a personal guarantee.
Defaults subsequently occurred in repayment of the amounts due under the two loan agreements. The Corporation issued loan recall notices to the respondents on October 29, 2021. The notices were also served on the managing director in his capacity as the personal guarantor.
In June 2022, the Corporation initiated arbitration proceedings before the Indian Council of Arbitration and sought recovery of the outstanding amounts from seven respondents.
The managing director and certain other individuals filed an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, questioning the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal over them. They argued that they had signed the loan agreements only as directors or authorised representatives and not in their personal capacities.
On October 23, 2024, the sole arbitrator accepted the jurisdictional objection and directed that the individuals be deleted from the arbitration proceedings.
The arbitrator held that they were not signatories to the loan agreements in their individual capacities and could not, therefore, be retained as parties to the Corporation’s statement of claim.
The Corporation challenged the arbitrator’s order before the Delhi High Court under Section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act. Its challenge was confined to the deletion of the managing director who had furnished the two personal guarantees.
The High Court held that the personal guarantees did not contain independent arbitration clauses. It observed that a general reference to another document would not automatically incorporate the arbitration clause contained in that document.
According to the High Court, the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal could not be based merely on the proximity of transactions or the commercial connection between different instruments. The jurisdiction had to be traceable to an express or validly incorporated arbitration agreement.
The High Court also found no material to establish that the managing director was the alter ego of the company or had misused the corporate structure to commit fraud. It consequently upheld the arbitrator’s decision.
Before the Supreme Court, the Corporation argued that the personal guarantees were not independent or collateral instruments. They were mandatory pre-disbursement conditions under the loan agreements and had been contractually classified as “Facility Agreements”.
It was submitted that the definition clauses, schedules and miscellaneous provisions of the loan agreements, when read together, expressly incorporated the personal guarantees into the principal agreements.
The guarantor, however, argued that only four of the seven instruments executed by the parties contained arbitration clauses. According to him, the arbitration clause in the loan agreements had never been incorporated into the personal guarantees.
It was contended that the case involved different contracts and parties and that an intention to bind a non-signatory to arbitration could not be presumed merely because the documents formed part of a commercially connected transaction.
The Supreme Court examined Section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act, which provides that a reference in a written contract to another document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the reference makes that clause part of the contract.
Referring to its earlier rulings, the Court noted that incorporation ordinarily requires a clear reference to the document containing the arbitration clause, an intention to incorporate that clause and an arbitration provision capable of applying to disputes under the contract.
The Court also referred to the Constitution Bench ruling in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., which recognised that both signatories and non-signatories may qualify as parties to an arbitration agreement. The conduct of a non-signatory, the nature and purpose of the contract, and the surrounding circumstances may indicate consent to arbitrate.
In composite transactions involving several agreements, courts and tribunals must examine whether the additional agreements are consequential to or in the nature of follow-up instruments to the principal agreement, the Court stated.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that the managing director had acted in two separate capacities. He signed the principal documents as the managing director of the borrower company and executed the personal guarantees in his individual capacity.
The loan agreements defined “Facility Agreements” to include all agreements, instruments, undertakings and deeds entered into in connection with the project. Schedule IV specifically included personal guarantees within the list of facility agreements.
The agreements further stipulated that the schedules and facility agreements would be deemed to form part of the loan agreements as if their provisions had been fully reproduced in them.
The Court held that this contractual language created an express deeming fiction that brought every facility agreement, including the personal guarantees, within the same legal and arbitral framework as the principal loan agreements.
“The Personal Guarantees do not, therefore, stand apart from the Loan Agreements, and are woven into their very fabric,” the Court observed.
The Court also noted that furnishing the guarantees was a mandatory pre-disbursement condition. Their execution contemporaneously with the principal loan agreements reinforced the conclusion that the entire cluster of documents was intended to operate as a single composite transaction.
The intention to incorporate the personal guarantees into the loan agreements was therefore explicit and did not merely arise by inference, the Court held.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the managing director could not be bound because he had not signed the loan agreements in his personal capacity.
The Court explained that the loans were granted to training partners for establishing Model Training Centres as part of a public skill-development programme. Such training partners may be thinly capitalised special-purpose entities, making personal guarantees from the individuals controlling them an important safeguard for public funds.
The guarantor had furnished the guarantees contemporaneously with, and as a condition precedent to, the loan agreements. The agreements themselves treated the guarantees as if they were extensions of the principal contracts.
Accordingly, the absence of the managing director’s personal signature on the loan agreements was not decisive.
The Supreme Court held that Clause 11.2 of the loan agreements, which provided for arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration, stood incorporated into the personal guarantees under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act.
The managing director was therefore bound to participate in arbitration concerning disputes arising from the guarantees.
The Court set aside the Delhi High Court judgment and the sole arbitrator’s order to the extent that they had allowed the guarantor’s jurisdictional objection and deleted him from the arbitration proceedings.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
