Issues for consideration:
The primary issue for consideration of the present Constitution Bench of Five Judges was determination of the validity of the ‘Group of companies doctrine’ in Indian arbitration jurisprudence and its applicability to proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Earlier, the Group of Companies doctrine had been adopted and applied in Indian arbitration jurisprudence in Chloro Controls case, where a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had read the said doctrine into the phrase “claiming through or under” in Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The ‘Group of companies doctrine’ provides that an arbitration agreement which is entered into by a company within a group of companies may bind non-signatory affiliates, if the circumstances are such as to demonstrate the mutual intention of the parties to bind both signatories and non-signatories. This doctrine was called into question purportedly on the ground that it interfered with the established legal principles such as party autonomy, privity of contract, and separate legal personality. Also, there were ancillary issues such as: (i) whether the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows joinder of a non-signatory as a party to an arbitration agreement; (ii) whether Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows for determination of an intention to arbitrate on the basis of the conduct of the parties; and (iii) interpretation of the phrase “claiming through or under” appearing under Sections 8, 35 and 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ed. Note: Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI pronounced judgment on behalf of his Lordship, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha pronounced a separate concurring judgment.
Arbitration – Arbitration agreement – Consent as the basis for arbitration:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): Consensus ad idem between the parties forms the essential basis to constitute a valid arbitration agreement – Since consent forms the cornerstone of arbitration, a nonsignatory cannot be forcibly made a “party” to an arbitration agreement as doing so would violate the sacrosanct principles of privity of contract and party autonomy. [Paras 60, 63]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.2(1)(h) r/w s.7 – Definition of “parties”:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The definition of “parties” under Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration Act includes both the signatory as well as non-signatory parties. [Para 165] Arbitration – Parties to an arbitration Agreement – Method to figure out:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The signature of a party on the agreement is the most profound expression of the consent of a person or entity to submit to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal – However, the corollary that persons or entities who have not signed the agreement are not bound by it may not always be correct – The issue of who is a “party” to an arbitration agreement is primarily an issue of consent. [Para 66] Words and Phrases – Arbitration agreement – Term “nonsignatories” – Meaning of: Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The term “nonsignatories”, instead of the traditional “third parties”, seems the most suitable to describe situations where consent to arbitration is expressed through means other than signature – A non-signatory is a person or entity that is implicated in a dispute which is the subject matter of an arbitration, although it has not formally entered into an arbitration agreement – Non-signatories, by virtue of their relationship with the signatory parties and active involvement in the performance of commercial obligations which are intricately linked to the subject matter, are not actually strangers to the dispute between the signatory parties. [Paras 66, 127] Arbitration – Group of companies doctrine in Indian arbitration jurisprudence – Relevance –Doctrines / Principles: Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The group of companies doctrine is a consent-based doctrine which has been applied, for identifying the real intention of the parties to bind a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement – The group of companies doctrine should be retained in the Indian arbitration jurisprudence considering its utility in determining the intention of the parties in the context of complex transactions involving multiple parties and multiple agreements. [Paras 81, 165] Corporate Law – Principle of corporate separateness – Separate legal personality:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The entities within a corporate group have separate legal personality, which cannot be ignored save in exceptional circumstances such as fraud – The distinction between a parent company and its subsidiary is fundamental, and cannot be easily abridged by taking recourse to economic convenience – Legally, the rights and liabilities of a parent company cannot be transferred to the subsidiary company, and vice versa, unless, there is a strong legal basis for doing so – The underlying basis for the application of the group of companies doctrine rests on maintaining the corporate separateness of the group companies while determining the common intention of the parties to bind the non-signatory party to the arbitration agreement. [Paras 89, 165] Arbitration – Group of companies doctrine – Adopting a pragmatic approach to consent:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): Corporate structures may take the form of groups based on equity, joint ventures, and informal alliances – In the context of arbitration law, the challenge arises when only one member of the group signs the arbitration agreement, to the exclusion of other members – Should the non-signatories be excluded from the arbitration proceedings, even though they were implicated in the dispute which forms the subject matter of arbitration? – As a response to this challenge, arbitration law has developed and adopted the group of companies doctrine, to allow or compel a non-signatory party to be bound by an arbitration agreement – The group of companies doctrine is applied to ascertain the intentions of the parties by analysing the factual circumstances surrounding the contractual arrangements. [Paras
96 and 97]
Arbitration – Group of companies doctrine – International perspectives – Precedents on applicability of the doctrine in France, England, Switzerland, Singapore and the USA – Discussed: Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The international jurisdictions, in some form or the other, have moved beyond the formalistic requirement of consent to bind a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement – The issue of binding a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement is more of a fact-specific aspect – In jurisdictions such as France and Switzerland, there is a broad consensus that consent or subjective intention of a non-signatory to arbitrate may be proved by conduct – Such subjective intention could be derived from the objective evidence in the form of participation of the nonsignatory in the negotiation, performance, or termination of the underlying contract containing the arbitration agreement – However, the group of companies doctrine has not been universally accepted by all jurisdictions – In jurisdictions such as France where the doctrine has gained acceptance, group of companies is one of the several factors that a court or tribunal considers to determine the mutual intention of all the parties to join the nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement. [Para 58] Arbitration – Group of companies doctrine, a fact based doctrine:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The existence of a group of companies is a factual element that the court or tribunal has to consider when analysing the consent of the parties – It inevitably adds an extra layer of criteria to an exercise which at its core is preponderant on determining the consent of the parties in case of complex transactions involving multiple parties and agreements. [Para 102] Arbitration – Group of companies doctrine – Mutual intention of all the parties to bind the non-signatory to the arbitration agreement – The determination of mutual intention:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The primary test to apply the group of companies doctrine is by determining the intention of the parties on the basis of the underlying factual circumstances – The application of the group of companies doctrine will serve to stymie satellite litigation by non-signatory members of the corporate group, thereby ensuring the efficacy of the agreement between the parties – Avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and fragmentation of disputes is certainly in the interests of justice –However, it can never be the sole consideration to invoke the group of companies doctrine. [Para 109] Arbitration – Group of companies doctrine – Applicability – Threshold standard of evidence:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): In Discovery Enterprises case, the Supreme Court refined and clarified the cumulative factors that the courts and tribunals should consider in deciding whether a company within a group of companies is bound by the arbitration agreement – All the cumulative factors laid down in Discovery Enterprises case must be considered while determining the applicability of the group of companies doctrine – However, the application of the above factors has to be fact-specific, and onecannot tie the hands of the courts or tribunals by laying down how much weightage they ought to give to the above factors – The principle of single economic unit cannot be the sole basis for invoking the group of companies doctrine. [Paras 110, 128 and 165] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.8 and 45 – Phrase “claiming through or under” as appearing under ss.8 and 45 of the Arbitration Act – Party to arbitration agreement and Persons “claiming through or under” a party to the arbitration agreement are different:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): A person “claiming through or under” is asserting their legal demand or cause of action in an intermediate or derivative capacity – A person “claiming through or under” has inferior or subordinate rights in comparison to the party from which it is deriving its claim or right – Therefore, a person “claiming through or under” cannot be a “party” to an arbitration agreement on its own terms because it only stands in the shoes of the original signatory party – Under the Arbitration Act, the concept of a “party” is distinct and different from the concept of “persons claiming through or under” a party to the arbitration agreement – The persons “claiming through or under” can only assert a right in a derivative capacity. [Paras 137, 165]
Words and Phrases – “Claiming through or under”; “claim”; “through” and “claiming under”. [Para 137]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.9 – Power of the Courts to issue directions u/s.9:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The group of companies doctrine is based on determining the mutual intention to join the non-signatory as a “veritable” party to the arbitration agreement – Once a tribunal comes to the determination that a non-signatory is a party to the arbitration agreement, such non-signatory party can apply for interim measures under s.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. [Para 153] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.8 and 11 – Standard of determination at the referral stage – Stage of applicability of the group of companies doctrine under the Arbitration Act:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): When a nonsignatory person or entity is arrayed as a party at Section 8 or Section
11 stage, the referral court should prima facie determine the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement, as the case may be, and leave it for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement – At the referral stage, the referral court should leave it for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement. [Paras 163, 165]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.7 – Requirement of a written arbitration agreement u/s.7 – Effect:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The requirement of a written arbitration agreement u/s.7 does not exclude the possibility of binding non-signatory parties. [Para 165]
Arbitration – Group of companies doctrine – Whether the principle of alter ego or piercing the corporate veil can be the basis for application of the group of companies doctrine:
Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The principle of alter ego disregards the corporate separateness and the intentions of the parties in view of the overriding considerations of equity and good faith – In contrast, the group of companies doctrine facilitates the identification of the intention of the parties to determine the true parties to the arbitration agreement without disturbing the legal personality of the entity in question – The principle of alter ego or piercing the corporate veil cannot be the basis for the application of the group of companies doctrine. [Paras 104, 165] Arbitration – Group of companies doctrine – Factors to be considered for application of the doctrine – Conduct of the nonsignatory parties – Relevance: Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The participation of the non-signatory in the performance of the underlying contract is the most important factor to be considered by the courts and tribunals – The intention of the parties to be bound by an arbitration agreement can be gauged from the circumstances that surround the participation of the non-signatory party in the negotiation, performance, and termination of the underlying contract containing such agreement – The non-signatory’s participation in the negotiation, performance, or termination of the contract can give rise to the implied consent of it being bound by the contract – Conduct of the non-signatory parties could be an indicator of their consent to be bound by the arbitration agreement. [Paras 118, 125 and 165] Arbitration – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.2(1)(h) and s.7 – Group of companies doctrine – Has independent existence: Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The group of companies doctrine has an independent existence as a principle of law which stems from a harmonious reading of s.2(1)(h) along with s.7 of the Arbitration Act. [Para 165]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Group of Companies doctrine – In Chloro Controls case, a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court read the said doctrine into the phrase “claiming through or under” in s.45 of the Arbitration Act – Challenge to. Held (per Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself, Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.): The approach of the Supreme Court in Chloro Controls case to the extent that it traced the group of companies doctrine to the phrase “claiming through or under” is erroneous and against the well-established principles of contract law and corporate law. [Para 165]
Arbitration – Group of companies doctrine – Applicability – Non-signatory, if party to arbitration agreement – Determination – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.7(4)(b). Held (per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.) (Concurring with Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI): An agreement to refer disputes to arbitration must be in a written form, as against an oral agreement, but need not be signed by the parties – Under s.7(4)(b), a court or arbitral tribunal will determine whether a non-signatory is a party to an arbitration agreement by interpreting the express language employed by the parties in the record of agreement, coupled with surrounding circumstances of the formation, performance, and discharge of the contract – While interpreting and constructing the contract, courts or tribunals may adopt well-established principles, which aid and assist proper adjudication and determination – The Group of Companies doctrine is one such principle. [Para 56] Arbitration – Group of companies doctrine – Arbitration agreement – Ascertaining the intention of the non-signatory. Held (per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.) (Concurring with Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI): The Group of Companies doctrine is also premised on ascertaining the intention of the non-signatory to be party to an arbitration agreement – The doctrine requires the intention to be gathered from additional factors such as direct relationship with the signatory parties, commonality of subject-matter, composite nature of the transaction, and performance of the contract. [Para 56] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.7(4)(b) – Inquiry by a court or arbitral tribunal under s.7(4)(b) and Group of companies doctrine.
Held (per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.) (Concurring with Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI): Since the purpose of inquiry by a court or arbitral tribunal u/s.7(4)(b) and the Group of Companies doctrine is the same, the doctrine can be subsumed within s.7(4)(b) to enable a court or arbitral tribunal to determine the true intention and consent of the nonsignatory parties to refer the matter to arbitration – The doctrine is subsumed within the statutory regime of s.7(4)(b) for the purpose of certainty and systematic development of law. [Para 56]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.2(1)(h), 7, 8 and 45 – Expression “claiming through or under” in ss.8 and 45 – Difference from expression ‘party’ in s.2(1)(h) and 7.
Held (per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.) (Concurring with Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI): The expression “claiming through or under” in ss.8 and 45 is intended to provide a derivative right; and it does not enable a non-signatory to become a party to the arbitration agreement – The decision in Chloro Controls tracing the Group of Companies doctrine through the phrase “claiming through or under” in ss.8 and 45 is erroneous – The expression ‘party’ in s.2(1)
(h) and s.7 is distinct from “persons claiming through or under them”. [Para 56]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
In the judgment of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc (2013) 1 SCC 641 : [2012] 13 SCR 402 – held, erroneous to an extent. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 42 : [2022] 4 SCR 926 – affirmed. Cheran Properties Ltd v. Kasturi and Sons Ltd. (2018) 16 SCC 413 : [2018] 4 SCR 1063; Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Canara Bank (2020) 12 SCC 767 : [2019] 11 SCR 660; Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd v. Jayesh H Pandya (2003) 5 SCC 531 : [2003] 3 SCR 558; Indowind Energy Ltd v. Wescare (I) Ltd. (2010) 5 SCC 306 : [2010] 5 SCR 284; Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 75; Sumitomo Corporation v. CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd, (2008) 4 SCC 91 : [2008] 3 SCR 309; S N Prasad v. Monnet Finance Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 320 : [2010] 13 SCR 207; Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises, (2018) 15 SCC 678 : [2018] 6 SCR 1001; Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v. Reynders Label Printing India Private Limited, (2019) 7 SCC 62 : [2019] 8 SCR 966; Bharat Aluminium Company v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services, (2016) 4 SCC 126 : [2016] 1 SCR 364; Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kumar [1969] 2 SCR 244; Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation v. Encon Builders (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 418 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 81; Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1968]
3 SCR 662; Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1 : [2020] 11 SCR 1001; M C Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore (1969) 2 SCC 343 : [1970] 1 SCR 658; Haji Mohammed Ishaq v. Mohamad Iqbal (1978) 2 SCC 493 : [1978] 3 SCR 571; Shakti Bhog Foods Limited v. Kola Shipping Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 134 : [2008] 13 SCR 925; Trimex International FZE Ltd v. Vedanta [2022] 4 SCR 926; Aluminium Ltd. (2010) 3 SCC 1 : [2010] 1 SCR 820; Great Offshore Ltd. v. Iranian Offshore Engineering and Construction Company, (2008) 14 SCC 240 : [2008] 12 SCR 515; S N Prasad v. Monnet Finance Limited (2011) 1 SCC 320 : [2010] 13 SCR 207; Govind Rubber Ltd v. M/s Louis Dreyfus Commodities, (2015) 13 SCC 477 : [2014] 12 SCR 488; Sundaram Finance Ltd v. NEPC India Ltd. (1999) 2 SCC 479 : [1999] 1 SCR 89; P Manohar Reddy and Bros v. Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, (2009) 2 SCC 494 : [2008] 17 SCR 1217; Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1964] 6 SCR 885; LIC v. Escorts Ltd. (1986) 1 SCC 264 : [1985] 3 Suppl. SCR 909; Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 662 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 295; Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar (2003) 6 SCC 1 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 175; Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India (2014) 9 SCC 407 : [2014] 14 SCR 1512; Vodafone International Holding BV v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 613 : [2012] 1 SCR 573; Kamla Devi v. Takhatmal Land, AIR 1964 SC 859 : [1964 ] 2 SCR 152; Bangalore Electricity Supply Co Ltd v. E S Solar Power (P) Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 718 : [2021] 1 SCR 453; Bank of India v. K Mohandas (2009) 5 SCC 313 : [2009] 1 SCR 1045; M Dayanand Reddy v. A P Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 137 : [1993] 2 SCR 629; A Ayyasamy v. A Paramsivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 : [2016] 11 SCR 521; Union of India v. D N Revri, (1976) 4 SCC 147 : [1977] 1 SCR 483; Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, (2003) 6 SCC 595 : [2003] 3 SCR 292; Olympus Superstructures (P) Ltd v. Meena Vijay Khetan, (1999) 5 SCC 651 : [1999] 3 SCR 490; Reliance Industries Ltd v. Union of India, (2014) 7 SCC 603 : [2014] 6 SCR 456; Enercon (India) Ltd v. Enercon Gmbh, (2014) 5 SCC 1: [2014]
2 SCR 855; Agri Gold Exims Ltd v. Sri Lakshmi Knits & Wovens, (2007) 3 SCC 686 : [2007] 1 SCR 1161; SBP & Co v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005)
8 SCC 618 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 688; Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. v. Northern Coal Field, (2020) 2 SCC 455; Pravin Electricals Pvt Ltd v. Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt Ltd. (2021) 5 SCC 671: [2021]
1 SCR 1162; Shin-Etsu Chemical Co Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 234 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 699 and Deutsche Post Bank Home Finance Ltd. v. Taduri Sridhar (2011) 11 SCC 375 : [2011] 5 SCR 674 – referred to. Dow Chemical v. Isover Saint Gobain, Interim Award, ICC Case No. 4131, 23 September 1982; Paris Court of Appeal, 7 December 1994, V 2000 (formerly Jaguar France) v. Project XS, Rev. Arb. (1996) 67; A, B, C v. D and State of Libya, 4 A 636/2018; 5 Saudi Butec Ltd et Al Fouzan Trading v. Saudi Arabian Saipem Ltd, unpublished ICC Interim Award of 25 October 1994, confirmed by DFT on 29 January 1996, ASA Bulletin (1996) Vol 3 p 496;X v. Y Engineering S.p.A. and Y S.p.A., 4A_450/2013, ASA Bull., 160 (2015); Peterson Farms INC v. C & M Farming Limited, [2004] EWHC 121; Roussel-Uclaf v. G D Searle and Co Ltd. [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep; The Mayoralty and Commonalty & Citizens of the City of London v. Ashok Sancheti, [2008] EWCA Civ 1283; Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd. v. Blackpool Borough Council, [1990] 1 WLR 1195; Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v. The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46; Manuchar Steel Hong Kong Limited v. Star Pacific Line Pte Ltd. [2014] SGHC 181; G E Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless, 140 S. Ct. 1637 (2020); American Fuel Corp v. Utah Energy Development Co, Inc, 122 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir 1997); American Bureau, Shipping v. Tencara Shipyard, 170 F.3d 349,
353 (2d Cir 1999); Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc v. Sunkist Growers, Inc, 10 F.3d 753, 757 (11th Cir 1993) and Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC,
210 F.3d 524 (2000); United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior and Gulf Navigation, (1960) 363 US 574, 582; Fiona Trust and Holding Company v. Privalov [2007] UKHL 40; Salomon v. Salomon [1897] AC 22; D H N Food Distributors Ltd v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976]
1 WLR 852; Bank of Tokyo v. Karoon, (1986) 3 All ER 468; Schiffahrts– gesellschaft Detlev von Appen v Voest Alpine Intertrading, [1997] EWCA Civ 1420; Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v. New India Assurance Co Ltd. [2005] EWHC 455 (Comm); West Tankers Inc. v. Allianz Spa, [2012] EWCA Civ 27; Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v. O’Brien, [1990] HCA 8; Rinehart v. Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd. [2019] HCA 13 – referred to.
Law Commission of India, ‘Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996’, Report No. 246 (August 2014); Bernard Hanotiau and Leonardo Ohlrogge, ‘40th Year Anniversary of the Dow Chemical Award’ 40(2) ASA Bulletin 300-308; Yves Derains, ‘Is there a Group of Companies Doctrine?’ in Bernard Hanotiau and Eric Schwartz (eds) in Dossier of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Volume 7, 131-145;Audley William Sheppard, ‘Third Party Non-Signatories in English Arbitration Law’ in Stavros Brekoulakis, Julian Lew, et al (eds) The Evolution and Future of International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2016) 183-198; Chitty on Contracts, Hugh Beale (ed), (32nd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, 2015) para 2-169 and para 1-104; Andrijana Misovic, ‘Binding non-signatories to arbitrate: the United States approach’ (2021) 37(3) Arbitration International 749-768; Bernard Hanotiau, ‘May an Arbitration Clause be Extended to Non-signatories: Individuals, States or Other Companies of the Group?’ in Complex Arbitrations: Multi-party, multi-contract, Multi-issue – A comparative study’ Bernard Hanotiau (eds) (2nd edn, 2020) 95, 194; Gary Born, International Arbitration Law and Practice (3rd ed, 2021);Pollock and Mulla, The Indian Contract and Specific Reliefs Act (14th edn, 2016) 235; Stavros Brekoulakis, ‘Rethinking Consent in International Commercial Arbitration: A General Theory for Non-signatories’ (2017) 8 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 610, 621; UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Recommendation regarding the interpretation of article II, paragraph 2, and article VII, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done in New York, 10 June 1958, (adopted by the UNCITRAL on
7 July 2006) 39; Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (7 th edn, Oxford University Press, 2023) para 2.23; Jayati Sarkar, ‘Business Groups in India’ in Asli Coplan, Takashi Hikino, and James Lincoln (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Business Groups (2010) 299; Bernard Hanotiau, ‘Consent to Arbitration: Do We Share a Common Vision?’ (2011) 27(4) Arbitration International 539, 554; Stavros Brekoulakis, ‘Parties in International Arbitration: Consent v. Commercial Reality’ in Stavros Brekoulakis, Julian DM Lew, et al (eds) in ‘The Evolution and Future of International Arbitration’ (2016) 119, 120; UNCITRAL, ‘Settlement of Commercial Disputes: Possible uniform rules on certain issues concerning settlement of commercial disputes: conciliation, interim measures of protection, written form of arbitration agreement: Report of the Secretary General’ A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.108/Add.1 (26 January 2000); Stavros Brekoulakis, ‘Parties in International Arbitration: Consent v. Commercial Reality’ in Stavros Brekoulakis, Julian DM Lew, et al (eds) ‘The Evolution and Future of International Arbitration’ (2016) 119, 137, 148; UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, 2016, Article 4.3; Stavros Brekoulakis, ‘Rethinking Consent in International Commercial Arbitration: A General Theory for Non-signatories’ (2017) 8 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 610, 621; Karim Youssef, ‘The Limits of Consent: The Right or Obligation to Arbitrate of Non-Signatories in Group of Companies’ in Multiparty Arbitration: Dossiers of the ICC Institute of Worlds Business Law, Volume 7 (2010) 71, 79; Russel on Arbitration (23rd edn, 2007) 99 para 3-018; Vicky Priskich, ‘Binding non-signatories to arbitration agreements – who are person ‘claiming through or under’ a party?’ (2019) 35(3) Arbitration International 375-386; Black’s Law Dictionary (5 th edn, 1979) 224; P Ramanatha Aiyar’s, The Law Lexicon (1997) 330, 331; Black’s Law Dictionary (5th edn, 1979) 1328; Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire (Belknap Press, Harvard University Press 1986) 229 – referred to. In the judgment of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., (2013) 1 SCC 641:[2013] 1 SCR 698 – held erroneous. Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd. (2022) 8 SCC 1; Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1 : [2020] 11 SCR 1001; Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt Ltd v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. (2022)
1 SCC 753; Jugal Kishore Rameshwardas v. Goolbai Hormusji [1955] 2 SCR 857; Caravel Shipping Services (P) Ltd v. Premier Sea Foods Exim (P) Ltd. (2019) 11 SCC 461 : [2018] 14 SCR 289; Rickmers Verwaltung Gmbh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 1 : [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 42; MTNL v. Canara Bank, (2020) 12 SCC 767 : [2019] 11 SCR 660; Babanrao Rajaram Pund v. Samarth Builders and Developers, (2022) 9 SCC 691; KK Modi v. KN Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573 : [1998] 1 SCR 601; Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation v. Encon Builders (I) Pvt Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 418 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 812; Shakti Bhog Foods v. Kola Shipping Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 134 : [2008] 13 SCR 925; Smita Conductors v. Euro Alloys, (2001) 7 SCC 728 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 477; Unissi (India) Pvt Ltd v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (2009) 1 SCC 107 : [2008] 14 SCR 108; Powertech World Wide Ltd v. Delvin international General Trading LLC (2012) 1 SCC 361 : [2011] 13 SCR 122; Govind Rubber v. Louids Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pvt Ltd. (2015) 13 SCC 477: [2014] 12 SCR 488; Nimet Resources Inc v. Essar Steels Ltd, (2000) 7 SCC 497; Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd (BESCOM) v. E.S. Solar Power Pvt Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 718; Food Corporation of India v. Abhijit Paul 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1605; Bank of India v. K. Mohandas (2009) 5 SCC 313 : [2009] 5 SCR 118; Godhra Electricity Co Ltd v. State of Gujarat (1975) 1 SCC 199 : [1975]
2 SCR 42; McDermott International Inc v. Burn Standard Co Ltd. (2006)
11 SCC 181 : [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 409; ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003)
5 SCC 705 : [2003] 3 SCR 691; Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003)
6 SCC 595 : [2003] 3 SCR 292; Sukanya Holdings v. Jayesh H Pandya (2003) 5 SCC 531 : [2003] 3 SCR 558; Indowind Energy Ltd v. Wescare (India) Ltd. (2010) 5 SCC 306 : [2010] 5 SCR 284; Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd. (2017) 9 SCC 729 : [2017] 10 SCR 285; Cheran Properties Ltd v. Kasturi and Sons Ltd. (2018) 16 SCC 413 : [2018] 4 SCR 1063; Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises (2018) 15 SCC
678 : [2018] 6 SCR 1001; ONGC v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt Ltd. (2022)
8 SCC 42; Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. Reynders Label Printing India Pvt Ltd. (2019) 7 SCC 62 : [2019] 8 SCR 966; MTNL v. Canara Bank (2020) 12 SCC 767: [2019] 11 SCR 660 – referred to. Dow Chemical v. Isover Saint Gobain. ICC Case No. 4131, 23 September 1982; Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co. v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan Case No. 9-28533, dated
17 February 2011 (Paris Cour d’Appel), [2010] UKSC 46; Malakoff Corporation Berhad and TLEMCEN Desalination Investment Company v. Algerian Energy Company SA and Hyflux Limited, Case No. 21-07296, dated 13 June 2023 (Paris Cour d’Appel); Peterson Farms Inc v. C&M Farming Ltd. [2004] EWHC 121 (Comm); Mayor and Commonalty & Citizens of the City of London v. Ashok Sancheti, [2008] EWCA Civ 1283; Bank of Tokyo Ltd v. Karoon, [1987] AC 45; Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v. Kout Food Group (Kuwait), [2021] UKSC 48; Manuchar Steel Hong Kong Ltd v. Star Pacific Line Pte Ltd. [2014] SGHC 181; GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS Corp., FKA Converteam SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-1048 (1 June 2020); McBro Planning & Dev. Co. v. Triangle Elec. Constr. Co. Inc., 741 F.2d 342 (11th Cir. 1984); Nauru Phosphate Royalties, Inc. v. Drago Daic Interests, Inc.
138 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1998); Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corp, 404 F. 3d
657 (2nd Cir. 2005) – referred to.
Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2016) para 2.01, 27; Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration, vol 1 (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021) 1531; Bernard Hanotiau, ‘Chapter 14: Group of Companies in International Arbitration’ in Loukas A. Mistelis and Julian D.M. Lew (ed), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration, vol 15 (Kluwer Law International 2006), 286; Bernard Hanotiau, ‘Consent to Arbitration: Do We Share a Common Vision?’ (2011) 27(4) Arbitration International 539 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
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.