May 11, 2010

 Entity not a party to an arbitration agreement not bound by arbitration clause

Supreme Court of India decides that an entity not a party to arbitration agreement is not bound by arbitration clause in the agreement

Introduction:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indowind Energy Ltd. (“Appellant”) vs. Wescare (I) Ltd. (“Respondent no.1”) & Subuthi Finance Ltd. (“Respondent no.2”).1 held that the third party to the arbitration agreement is not bound by arbitration clause in the agreement and also made an important observation that in a proceeding under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “the Act”), the High Court is not permitted to hold that a party is a prima facie party to an arbitration agreement but has to pass a final decision as to who are the parties to arbitration agreement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically stated that once the High Court renders a decision under Sec. 11 of the Act holding that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, it will not be permissible for the arbitrator to consider or examine the same issue and record a finding contrary to the finding recorded by the High Court.

Facts of the case:

The Respondent no. 2 was the promoter of Appellant. Respondent no.2 entered into an Agreement with Respondent no.1 for sale of certain business assets belonging to Respondent no.1 for consideration partly in cash and partly in shares. Though Appellant was not a party to the Agreement.  Respondent No.2 was described as “promoters of Indowind Energy Ltd.” in the Agreement.”

This Agreement consisted of an arbitration clause in reference to disputes arising between the parties under the Agreement. Certain dispute arose between Appellant and Respondent no.1 under the Agreement. Respondent no.1 proceeded to file an application for the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section. 11 of the Act before the Hon’ble Madras High Court making Appellant a party. Appellant challenged the said application claiming that since it was not a party to the Agreement therefore it was not bound by any arbitration clause.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court rejected the contention of the Appellant inter alia for the following reasons:-

(i)             Existence of the Agreement was not in dispute

(ii)            Respondent no.2 is one of the promoters of Appellant and both of them had a common registered office and common Directors including the same Director who executed the Agreement on behalf Respondent no.2

(iii)           Appellant contemplated purchasing the assets of Respondent no.1 under the Agreement

This Judgment of Madras High Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India .

Decision:

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether arbitration clause contained in an arbitration agreement is binding on a ‘third party’ which has not signed the agreement in question.

The Supreme Court, by interpreting the definition of “party” contained in Sec. 2 (h) of the Act read with Section 7 of the Act and also considering the fact that there was no acknowledgement or statement that the Agreement was authorized to be entered by Appellant on its behalf nor did the Board of the Appellant ratify or approve the said Agreement, held that Appellant is not bound by the arbitration Clause contained in the said Agreement.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court while allowing the application of Respondent no.1 under Section. 11 of the Act for the appointment of an Arbitrator, held that even though the Appellant was not a signatory to the Agreement, it was  prima  facie a party to the arbitration agreement.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court disagreed with the observation made by the Madras High Court by categorically stating that :

“ …..the learned Chief Justice or his designate is required to decide the issue finally and it is not permissible in a proceeding under section 11 to merely hold that a party is  prima facie a party to the arbitration agreement and that a party is prima facie bound by it. It is not as if the Chief Justice or his Designate will subsequently be passing any other final decision as to who are the parties to the arbitration agreement. Once a decision is rendered by the Chief Justice or his Designate under section II of the Act, holding that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, it will not be permissible for the arbitrator to consider or examine the same issues and record a finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Court.”

Therefore, the Madras High Court order was set aside.

Analysis:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order in line with the precedents set by it of strictly interpreting who could be ‘parties’ to arbitration. It has made clear that only the parties who have signed or accepted the agreement can be considered as the parties to the arbitration agreement. In this context, it may be quite relevant to state that the  Arbitration Act , 1996 of U.K has a wider scope by expanding the definition of ‘parties’ to include any person claiming under or through a party to the agreement.2

__________________

1 Civil Appeal No. 3874 of 2010

2 Sec. 82 (2) of the U.K Arbitration Act , 1996.

 

 

- Debargha Basu & Vyapak Desai

 

 

You may direct your comments to Ramya Krishnan-AniL

 

+91 900465 0363

 

Management by Trust in a Democratic Enterprise: A Law Firm Shapes Organizational Behavior to Create Competitive Advantage, Global Business and Organizational Excellence, Sep 2009

NDA: A different approach by Shyamal Majumdar, Business Standard, July 23, 2009.

A law firm head spends his time studying organisational behavior.

IFLR : Winner of Indian Law Firm of the Year 2010 for Technology-Media-Telecom (TMT)

Nishith Desai: Voted ‘External Counsel of the Year 2009’ by Asian Counsel

Pacific Business Press: Winner of 'Asian-Counsel’s Social Responsible Deals of the Year 2009'

>>>

Fund Structuring - Formal Embargo on Protected Cell Companies, April 21, 2010

 

Welcome to connect with us at interesting conferences, seminars and events.

>>>

 

Introducing NDA Dialawgue and Deal Destination.

Vikram Shroff on CNBC TV18: NASSCOM asks govt to relax E-visa norms on expats

Mr. Nishith Desai on ‘The Firm’- CNBC TV 18: Bombay HC ruling in the case of Lawyers Collective

>>>

 

Click here to view Hotline archives.

The Battle For Fame - Part I, April 1, 2010

Great Offshore Takeover Saga – Bharati Shipyard v/s ABG Shipyard, Dec 16, 2009

>>>

Toyota fails to obtain exclusivity over use of PRIUS mark, World Trademark Review, Prerak Hora, April 12, 2010

In My View, Singapore Venture Capital & PE Association, Rohini Agarwal, Archana Rajaram & Vivek Kathpalia, April 2010

Doing Business in India

Joint Ventures in India

Mergers & Acquisitions in India

Dispute Resolution in India

Real Estate Investment

 

Our email newsletters – Hotlines are very popular for their insights and analysis. Sign-up to receive Hotlines on the following – Tax, CorpSec, HR, Dispute Resolution and our regular updates such as M&A Labs, IP, Pharma, Media, Telecom Updates and Budget and Policy Analyses.

 

Please visit www.nishithdesai.com to access our Research online.

 

Unsubscribe

 

Feedback

Disclaimer: The contents of this hotline should not be construed as legal opinion. View detailed disclaimer.

This Hotline provides general information existing at the time of preparation. The Hotline is intended as a news update and Nishith Desai Associates neither assumes nor accepts any responsibility for any loss arising to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material contained in this Hotline. It is recommended that professional advice be taken based on the specific facts and circumstances. This Hotline does not substitute the need to refer to the original pronouncements. 

This is not a Spam mail. You have received this mail because you have either requested for it or someone must have suggested your name. Since India has no anti-spamming law, we refer to the US directive, which states that a mail cannot be considered Spam if it contains the sender's contact information, which this mail does. In case this mail doesn't concern you, please unsubscribe from mailing list.