{"title":"India’s tryst with the group of companies doctrine: the end or the beginning of a new dawn?","authors":"V. Singh, Abhijnan Jha, Abhisar Vidyarthi","doi":"10.1093/arbint/aiad010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Recently, in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd (2022), the Supreme Court of India called into question the doctrinal ingredients and applicability of the group of companies doctrine in India. The Apex Court doubted the correctness of its consistent line of earlier decisions, wherein the group of companies doctrine had been strongly embraced as a tool to bind non-signatories to arbitration. Holding that the group of companies doctrine appears to have been based more on economics and convenience rather than law, the Supreme Court has referred several questions regarding the validity and applicability of the doctrine in India to a larger bench for consideration. The purpose of this case note is to summarize and comment on the judgment of the Supreme Court. The case note critically analyses the concerns and questions raised by the Supreme Court. In doing so, the case note concludes that there is sufficient basis for the existence and application of the group of companies doctrine under the [Indian] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.","PeriodicalId":37425,"journal":{"name":"Arbitration International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arbitration International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiad010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Recently, in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd (2022), the Supreme Court of India called into question the doctrinal ingredients and applicability of the group of companies doctrine in India. The Apex Court doubted the correctness of its consistent line of earlier decisions, wherein the group of companies doctrine had been strongly embraced as a tool to bind non-signatories to arbitration. Holding that the group of companies doctrine appears to have been based more on economics and convenience rather than law, the Supreme Court has referred several questions regarding the validity and applicability of the doctrine in India to a larger bench for consideration. The purpose of this case note is to summarize and comment on the judgment of the Supreme Court. The case note critically analyses the concerns and questions raised by the Supreme Court. In doing so, the case note concludes that there is sufficient basis for the existence and application of the group of companies doctrine under the [Indian] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
期刊介绍:
Launched in 1985, Arbitration International provides quarterly coverage for national and international developments in the world of arbitration. The journal aims to maintain balance between academic debate and practical contributions to the field, providing both topical material on current developments and analytic scholarship of permanent interest. Arbitrators, counsel, judges, scholars and government officials will find the journal enhances their understanding of a broad range of topics in commercial and investment arbitration. Features include (i) articles covering all major arbitration rules and national jurisdictions written by respected international practitioners and scholars, (ii) cutting edge (case) notes covering recent developments and ongoing debates in the field, (iii) book reviews of the latest publications in the world of arbitration, (iv) Letters to the Editor and (v) agora grouping articles related to a common theme. Arbitration International maintains a balance between controversial subjects for debate and topics geared toward practical use by arbitrators, lawyers, academics, judges, corporate advisors and government officials.