ICL Arbitration- a controversy not for the first time !

Supreme Court on Sukanya Holdings and section 45

… In a case like the present one, where origin and end of all is with the Mother or the Principal Agreement, the fact that a party was non-signatory to one or other agreement may not be of much significance… In cases involving execution of such multiple agreements, two essential features exist; firstly, all ancillary agreements are relatable to the mother agreement and secondly, performance of one is so intrinsically inter-linked with the other agreements that they are incapable of being beneficially performed without performance of the others or severed from the rest. The intention of the parties to refer all the disputes between all the parties to the arbitral tribunal is one of the determinative factor.

incapable of being beneficially performed

beneficially ?!

Going by wisdom gathered in hindsight, it is the use of any such ab-extra term or expression by the judiciary, unwittingly or otherwise, in adjudicating on a given dispute, without clearly indicating or elaborating the significance or meaning whereof, if at all any, which leaves wide open prospects for further procrastination of disputes. 

Inviting to share individuals' own views !

As modified & posted @ICL>

“........incapable of being beneficially performed”

The seemingly never-ending chain of case law calls for a grave misgiving. That is, the use of any such ab-extra term or expression by the judiciary, unwittingly or otherwise, in adjudicating on a given dispute, without clearly indicating or elaborating the significance or meaning thereof,granting there is any, which leaves wide open prospects for further procrastination of disputes.
Inviting to share individuals' own views!