Extension Of Arbitration Agreements To Non Signatories India

Compartilhe

3. Notwithstanding the granting of an application under subsection 1 and the consideration of the matter before the judicial authority, arbitration proceedings may be initiated or prosecuted and an arbitration award may be rendered.” In particular, in view of the fact that the compromise clause expressly accepted by some companies in the group should bind the other companies which, because of their role in concluding, executing or terminating the contracts containing these clauses, and in accordance with the mutual intent of all parties to the proceedings, appear to be or have been primarily affected by these contracts and which have been affected by the disputes they may cause. (mentions in evidence) The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom had previously refused to impose the arbitration award in England on the grounds that the Pakistani government was not a proper part of the arbitration. 2. The application under subsection 1 can only be processed if it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a properly certified copy. In its decision, the Tribunal found that BSSA had implemented the distribution agreement for several years in place of BAG, thereby expressing its intention to be bound by this agreement, including its compromise clause. With respect to the Slovenian company`s allegations that BSSA could not be bound by the written arbitration clause because it had not signed it and therefore had not met one of the terms of form set out in Article II of the NYC, the Court found that this argument was contrary to the principle of good faith (come contrae factum proprium). Indeed, the Slovenian company has actively participated in the implementation of the agreement by BSSA without reservation. Finally, the Court confirmed that the parties` conduct constituted a tacit extension of the agreement and the compromise clause until the end of 2015. In conclusion, the Court found that it was not competent and referred the parties to arbitration in accordance with Article II, paragraph 3, of NYC.

67. The principle that an unssigned party could be the subject of arbitration proceedings is thus developed, provided that these transactions are due to a group of companies and the parties, both the signatory parties and the non-signatory parties, clearly intend to engage it. In other words, “the intention of the parties” is a very important feature that must be defined before the scope of the arbitration procedure can be qualified as a signatory and for the non-signatory parties. Given that Chloro Controls (supra) was rendered under section 45 of the Act and that Sukanya Holdings (supra) occupied the ground when referring non-signatory parties to arbitration in the national scenario, it might seem automatic that non-signatory parties could never be bound to an arbitration agreement in a Section 8 reference. But even before the law was amended in 2015, the Indian courts had alluded to their power (whether true or not) to apply the Chloro Controls (supra) report to an internal arbitration procedure. In a motion under Section 9 of the Act, in which certain advance facilities were also requested against the non-signatory parties, the Bombay High Court division referred, although it ruled on the facts of that case and the importance of the compromise clause, on the relationship to Chloro Controls (supra) and on the power of the courts to refer non-signatory parties to arbitration. , even if the disputes were here between the national parties.7 At Chloro Controls (supra), it was a principal agreement between a non-biased Indian party and a foreign party, With English law being the seat of arbitration in force and London being the seat of arbitration and several related agreements arising from the aforementioned shareholders` pact, but not between the same parties. The Supreme Court considered whether all of these parties could be referred to a single arbitration and whether such an injunction was contrary to its earlier judgment, Sukanya Holdings (supra), and found that Sukanya Holdings (supra) had been taken under Section 8 of the Act, when the facts in