LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/balaji-steel-trade-vs-fludor-benin-s-a-20251121/ · Printed 10 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Balaji Steel Trade vs Fludor Benin S.A

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
21 November 2025
Case No.
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 65 OF 2023
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Acts & Sections
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 §11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 §11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 §11(12)(a)
Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioner, Balaji Steel Trade, filed an Arbitration Petition under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in respect of disputes arising out of a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) dated 06.06.2019 executed with respondent no. 1, Fludor Benin S.A., a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Benin. The petitioner also sought a composite reference to arbitration by invoking the group of companies doctrine so as to include respondent no. 2, M/s Vink Corporations DMCC (Dubai), and respondent no. 3, Tropical Industries International Pvt. Ltd. (India), all allegedly owned and controlled by the TGI Group.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on multiple grounds. First, since the primary contract (BSA) provided for international commercial arbitration to be conducted in Benin, the provisions of Part I of the Act, 1996, including Section 11, had no application. Second, the BSA was the 'mother agreement' exclusively between the petitioner and respondent no. 1, to which respondents no. 2 and 3 were strangers; the arbitration clauses in the Sales Contracts and High Seas Sales Agreements (HSSAs) executed with the other respondents could not be imported to govern disputes arising from the BSA and its Addendum. Third, the Sales Contracts and HSSAs did not novate or supersede the BSA.

The Court further held that the petitioner was barred by issue estoppel consequent upon the dismissal of its anti-arbitration injunction suit by the High Court of Delhi, which had already returned findings adverse to the petitioner on the same questions sought to be re-agitated. Additionally, the group of companies doctrine was inapplicable as there was no compositeness of the transaction sufficient to attract that doctrine. The Benin Arbitration, invoked by respondent no. 1, had in the meantime culminated.
Catchwords: Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 · Section 11 · international commercial arbitration · appointment of arbitrator · Buyer and Seller Agreement · group of companies doctrine · composite reference · issue estoppel · anti-arbitration injunction · novation · Part I applicability · Benin arbitration · High Seas Sales Agreement · Sales Contracts · maintainability

Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.

Filed under

Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Full Judgment Text

[Cites 22, Cited by 0] Supreme Court of India Balaji Steel Trade vs Fludor Benin S.A on 21 November, 2025 Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 1342 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 65 OF 2023 BALAJI STEEL TRADE ...PETITIONER (S) VERSUS FLUDOR BENIN S.A. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT 1. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, this judgment contains the following parts: - Table of Contents I. Introduction: .................................................
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →