Within Sukanya Holdings (a.a.a.), disputes had broken out between several parties in the same transaction. However, not all of these parties were parties to the agreement containing the arbitration clause and the Supreme Court stated that non-signatories could not be referred to a single arbitration procedure under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 19965 (hereinafter the Act). In addition, it was decided that the means of arbitration proceedings could not be divided and that, therefore, arbitration proceedings could be limited only to the parties to the arbitration agreement. Therefore, any person who was not a party to the arbitration agreement could not be arbitrated. The Supreme Court ruled as follows: in its decision on KFG`s request to set aside the set-aside, the Paris Court of Appeal repeated the same reasoning by stating: “In accordance with a substantive rule of international arbitration law, the arbitration clause is legally independent of the underlying contract in which it is incorporated either directly, or by reference. and its existence and validity, subject to the mandatory rules of French law and international public policy, shall be interpreted according to the common will of the parties, without reference to national law. [Abs. After referring to the ICC arbitration award in Dow Chemicals (a.o.a.), the Court stated that the usual rule is that only parties who have entered into an arbitration agreement are required to settle their disputes through arbitration. Arbitration is an amicable procedure and the arbitration agreement waives a party`s right to avail itself of the jurisdiction of other competent courts in favor of arbitration proceedings. . .