As per case facts, the petitioner sought an arbitral tribunal for disputes over a 2003 lease agreement. The lease originally with Reliance Infocomm Ltd. later involved Reliance Infratel Ltd. (post-insolvency, ... taken over by Respondent No.1, who then transferred business to Respondent No.2). Disputes concern unpaid rent and charges after the lease expired, with respondents denying arbitrability due to their non-signatory status, claims extinguishment by an insolvency plan, and alleged novation. The question arose whether these disputes, especially involving non-signatories and post-insolvency claims, should be referred to an arbitral tribunal. Finally, the court, limiting its role to prima facie satisfaction of an arbitration agreement, found sufficient connection of respondents to the lease. It ruled that jurisdiction, arbitrability, and non-signatory binding issues are for the arbitral tribunal to decide under Section 16, upholding the competence-competence doctrine. The application for an arbitral tribunal was allowed.