Call us: +91 9406549595.
info@rvpadvocates.com
RVP AdvocatesRVP AdvocatesRVP AdvocatesRVP Advocates
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Areas of Practice
  • Our Clients
  • Media
  • Articles
  • Legal Updates
  • Contact Us

Supreme Court Constitution Bench considers the existence of Doctrine of Group of Companies in Indian jurisprudence vis-à-vis Arbitration Act

Home Legal Updates Supreme Court Constitution Bench considers the existence of Doctrine of Group of Companies in Indian jurisprudence vis-à-vis Arbitration Act
NextPrevious
Supreme Court Constitution Bench considers the existence of Doctrine of Group of Companies in Indian jurisprudence vis-à-vis Arbitration Act

Supreme Court Constitution Bench considers the existence of Doctrine of Group of Companies in Indian jurisprudence vis-à-vis Arbitration Act

By Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 7 June, 2023 | 0

Group of Companies Doctrine- an Arbitration Agreement entered into by a Company within a group of Companies can bind its non-signatory affiliates, if the circumstances demonstrate that the mutual intention of parties was to bind signatory as well as the non-signatory parties.

Supreme Court: The Constitution bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud C.J., Hrishikesh Roy, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, commenced the hearing of Cox and Kings Limited v SAP India Private Limited, pertaining to the issue of:

  • Whether the Group of Companies Doctrine exists in Indian jurisprudence, independent of statutory provision?
  • Whether the same can be read into Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’)?
  • Whether it should continue to be invoked on grounds of a single economic reality principle?
  • Whether it should be construed as a means of interpreting the implied intent or consent to arbitrate between the parties?

 

In the matter at hand, Cox and Kings Limited (‘petitioner’) provides tours and travels services. SAP SE GMBH (respondent 2) is a European multinational software company incorporated under the laws of Germany.

The Petitioner had entered into an SAP Software End User License Agreement & SAP Enterprise Support Schedule (‘License Agreement’) dated 14-12-2010. Respondent 2 was the proprietor and licensor of the software. SAP India Private Limited (‘respondent 1’) was merely its licensee in India which was a subsidiary of respondent 2. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 were allegedly the same ‘group of companies.’ The agreements signed between the parties also recorded that the SAP Hybris Solution software suitable for the use of the petitioner was owned by respondent 2 whereas respondent 1 was merely a licensee. All agreements executed between the parties were composite in nature forming an interlinked transaction by both respondent 1 and 2 to provide services to the petitioner.

Petitioner contended that serious prejudice was caused to their functioning due to the challenges and delay in the execution of the project on part of respondent 1. Since no concrete response or action was received from respondent 1, petitioner escalated the issue to the proprietor of the software respondent 2- listing out several issues with the project and requesting to bring the project back on track. Consequently, respondent 2 assured the petitioner to monitor progress of the project and revise engagement plan and delivery approach.

On 01-12-2016, respondent 2 resorted to pushing the blame on petitioner regarding the failure of the project stating that various bills were pending to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 07-11-2019 by way of which they invoked the arbitration clause 15.7 of the Services General Terms and Conditions Agreement for adjudication of disputes. Petitioner had filed a counter claim for a sum of Rs 45,99,71,098/- with interest which was challenged on the ground of maintainability by respondent 1 before the Tribunal.

NCLT, Mumbai Bench had admitted the application of Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) vide order dated 22.10.2019 and accordingly imposed a moratorium under Section 14 of IBC. Consequent to which the Tribunal adjourned the arbitration proceedings sine die in view of the moratorium imposed on the petitioner.

The resolution applicant of the petitioner had appointed former Judge of Supreme Court Justice Arijit Pasayat as its nominated arbitrator and called upon the respondent to appoint their arbitrator. Since neither respondent 1 nor 2 responded, they were constrained to file the present arbitration petition under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration.

While inferring the intention of respondent 2 from the terms of the mulitple contracts, the petitioner relied upon Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification, (2013) 1 SCC 641 and contended that under the “Group of Companies” Doctrine, an Arbitration Agreement entered into by a Company within a group of Companies can bind its non-signatory affiliates, if the circumstances demonstrate that the mutual intention of parties was to bind signatory as well as the non-signatory parties.

It was held that “it does occasionally happen that the claim is made against or by someone who is not originally named as a party. These may create some difficult situations, but certainly, they are not absolute obstructions to law/the arbitration agreement. Arbitration, thus, could be possible between a signatory to an arbitration agreement and a third party…, whereby an arbitration agreement entered into by a company, being one within a group of companies, can bind its non- signatory affiliates or sister or parent concerns, if the circumstances demonstrate that the mutual intention of all the parties was to bind both the signatories and the non-signatory affiliates. This theory has been applied in a number of arbitrations so as to justify a tribunal taking jurisdiction over a party who is not a signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement.”

Matter adjourned for hearing for 28-03-2023. [Cox and Kings Limited v SAP India Private Limited, Arbitration Petition 38 of 2020, matter heard on 23-03-2023].

SourceUrl: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/03/23/supreme-court-considers-existence-of-doctrine-of-group-of-companies-in-indian-jurisprudence-legal-news-legal-research-updates/

11(12)(a), 2016, Arbitration Act, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi

More posts by Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi

Related Post

  • mx player download for windows 10 ✓ Get MX Player for PC Now!

    By Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi | 0 comment

    mx player download for windows 10 – Experience versatile media playback with MX Player on Windows PCs. Enjoy ✓ subtitle support, ➔ hardware acceleration, and ★ gesture controls for an enhanced viewing experience. Download now!

  • Divorce by Mutual Consent

    By Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi | 0 comment

    Divorce is a difficult decision, but sometimes it becomes the best option for couples who find themselves unable to continue their marriage. In India, divorce by mutual consent is recognized under both the Hindu MarriageRead more

  • Difference between permanent alimony and maintenance

    By Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi | 0 comment

    In Indian family law, the terms “permanent alimony” and “maintenance” refer to different concepts regarding financial support for a spouse. However, it is important to note that the terminology and application of these concepts mayRead more

  • Quashing of False FIR

    By Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi | 0 comment

    In India, a false FIR (First Information Report) or a criminal case can be quashed by the trial court or the High Court depending on stage of the case if it is determined that noRead more

  • Partition of Family Property

    By Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi | 0 comment

    Partition of family property refers to the division or distribution of jointly owned property among the legal heirs. The division can occur either by mutual agreement or through a legal process, such as filing aRead more

  • Supreme Court Constitution Bench holds Jallikattu, Kambala and bull -cart racing legal

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench holds Jallikattu, Kambala and bull -cart racing legal

    By Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi | 0 comment

    The Supreme Court said that this decision on the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act would also guide the Maharashtra and the Karnataka Amendment Acts. Thus, it held that all the three Amendment Acts are valid legislations.Read more

  • Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: Decoding Supreme Court judgment on grant of divorce under Article 142 of Constitution; waiver of 6 month’s cooling off period

    By Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi | 0 comment

    Given the expansive amplitude of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the exercise of power must be legitimate, and clamours for caution, mindful of the danger that arises from adopting an individualistic approach asRead more

  • Explained| The momentous Same Sex Marriage matter before the Supreme Court Constitution Bench

    Explained| The momentous Same Sex Marriage matter before the Supreme Court Constitution Bench

    By Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi | 0 comment

    Petitioner contended that they were entitled to the Fundamental Right to marry which was entrenched in the Constitution which includes the choice of a marital partner. Neither the State nor Society could intrude into theRead more

Leave a Comment

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NextPrevious

Recent Posts

  • Empowering Justice: The Significance of Writs in Safeguarding Fundamental Rights in India
  • Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to Police Constable in a Destruction of Property and Dacoity case.
  • Irretrievable breakdown of marriage | Supreme Court invokes Article 142 of the Constitution to grant mutual consent divorce.
  • Supreme Court grants interim relief to homebuyers for deferred payment of EMIs till possession of homes.
  • Rajasthan Civil Judge Recruitment| SC delivers Split verdict on considering candidature of OBC-EWS candidates despite belated submission of category certificates

Recent Comments

    GET IN TOUCH

    Get In Touch

    • 315, City Centre, Opp. MP High Court, MG Road, Indore- 452001 (MP)
    • +91 9406549595
    • +91 731 4049595
    • info@rvpadvocates.com

    Quick Links

    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Disclaimer

    Connect With Us

    Copyright 2023 | Raghuvanshi Vaidya & Partners | All Rights Reserved
    • Home
    • About Us
    • Areas of Practice
    • Our Clients
    • Media
    • Articles
    • Legal Updates
    • Contact Us
    RVP Advocates