ARTICLE
15 December 2023

Constitution Bench Of The Supreme Court Of India Decides Whether Group Entities (Non-Signatory Affiliates) Can Be Made Parties To An Arbitration Agreement Under The Provisions Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996.

SL
Sochannam Legal

Contributor

Sochannam Legal is a Indian law practice focussing on maritime law (dry and wet matters), Insurance law, international trade and commercial disputes. Sochannam Legal also advises on setting up business operations in India having a global network and structure. The practice is driven towards finding practical solutions to the issues faced by parties, be it contentious matters or corporate transactions.
A Constitution Bench comprising of 5 judges of the Supreme Court India (SCI) was called upon to determine the validity of the ‘Group of Companies' doctrine in the jurisprudence of Indian arbitration.
India Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India1 decides whether Group Entities (Non-Signatory Affiliates) can be made parties to an arbitration agreement under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

I. Background:

A Constitution Bench comprising of 5 judges of the Supreme Court India (SCI) was called upon to determine the validity of the 'Group of Companies' doctrine in the jurisprudence of Indian arbitration. The 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.

The issue was referred to Constitution Bench by a three Judge Bench of the SCI. The reference arose when an application was made to the three-judge bench of the SCI for constitution of arbitral tribunal involving group companies. The Constitutional Bench of the SCI did not deal with the factual issues as it was addressing the legal issue.

In substance, the SCI dealt with issue of whether the phrase (claiming through or under) in S. 8 ,11 and 45 of the Arbitration Act could be interpreted to include the 'Group of Companies' doctrine. S. 8 of the Arbitration Act deals with power of the court to refer parties to arbitration. S. 11 of the Arbitration Act deals with Appointment of arbitrators and S. 45 of the Arbitration Act deals with power of judicial authorities to refer partes to arbitration under New York Convention Awards.

During the course of the arguments, it was also considered if the concept of Group Company Doctrine could be subsumed in under S. 7 of the Arbitration Act. S. 7 of the arbitration Act is reproduced below:

Arbitration agreement.-(1) In this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.

(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.

(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.

(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in-

(a) a document signed by the parties;

(b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement; or

(c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.

(5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract

II. Decision of the Supreme Court of India.

i. The group of companies doctrine has an independent existence as a principle of law which stems from a harmonious reading of Section 2(1)(h) along with Section 7 of the Arbitration Act.

ii. The requirement of a written arbitration agreement under Section 7 does not exclude the possibility of binding non-signatory parties;

iii. 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;

iv. 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;

v. The principle of alter ego or piercing the corporate veil cannot be the basis for the application of the group of companies doctrine.

vi. 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;

vii. 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.

viii.Since the purpose of inquiry by a court or arbitral tribunal under Section 7(4)(b) and the Group of Companies doctrine is the same, the doctrine can be subsumed within Section 7(4)(b) to enable a court or arbitral tribunal to determine the true intention and consent of the non-signatory parties to refer the matter to arbitration. The doctrine is subsumed within the statutory regime of Section 7(4)(b) for the purpose of certainty and systematic development of law.

ix. The expression "claiming through or under" in Sections 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 (supra) tracing the Group of Companies doctrine through the phrase "claiming through or under" in Sections 8 and 45 is erroneous. The expression 'party' in Section 2(1)(h) and Section 7 is distinct from "persons claiming through or under them".

III. Conclusions

i. While the SCI ruled that phrase - claiming through or under in S. 8 ,11 and 45 cannot mean to include Group Company Doctrine, the SCI subsumed the principles of Group Company Doctrine under S. 7 of the Arbitration Act.

ii. The SCI subsumed the Group Company Doctrine under S .7 of the Arbitration Act with respect to formation of arbitration agreement as opposed to recognizing the Group Company Doctrine under S. 8 ,11 and 45 of the Arbitration Act in the context of a particular phrase - claiming through or under.

iii. The approach of the SCI is sensible and practical, as the Group Company Doctrine needs to first pass muster of S. 7 of the Arbitration Act. Once the referral court prima facie determines the existence of arbitration agreement and whether the non-signatory is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement, the tribunal will decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement. The same prime facie principle will apply should a non-signatory invoke the arbitration agreement.

iv. The case highlights the importance of avoiding boilerplate arbitration clauses where group entities related to the contracting parties are involved in some capacity in performance of a contract or discharge of an obligation or otherwise.

Footnote

1. Cox and Kings Limited V. SAP India Pvt Ltd – 2023 INSC 1051,2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1634

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More