As per case facts, the Petitioner and Respondent 1 & 2 were partners in Ashoka Exports, governed by a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause. The Petitioner alleged that Respondent ... 1 acted unfairly, siphoning assets, and promoting Respondent 3 (identified as Respondent 1's alter ego), a company operating a competitive business from the same premises, thereby denying the Petitioner access to accounts and partnership rights. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed to divide the business, but the Petitioner claimed violations, including Respondent 3 using the firm's user ID, poaching clients and workers, and diverting purchase orders. Following these disputes, the Petitioner sought interim reliefs under Section 9 and filed a contempt application, subsequently issuing an arbitration notice under Clause 25 of the partnership deed, which Respondent 1 rejected. The question arose whether Respondent 3, a non-signatory to the original partnership deed and arbitration agreement, could be compelled to participate in the arbitral proceeding, especially given the allegations of it being an alter ego and engaging in a parallel business that benefited from the partnership's assets and operations. Finally, the court found a prima facie case for piercing the corporate veil of Respondent 3 to ascertain its connection with the dispute. Citing judicial precedents, the court affirmed that even a non-signatory can be referred to arbitration under exceptional situations such as alter ego or estoppel, emphasizing that the Arbitral Tribunal is fully empowered under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to decide issues of joinder and non-joinder of parties, including the applicability of the Group of Companies Doctrine. The referral court's role under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie examination, leaving substantive determinations to the Tribunal.