Arbitration | Non-Signatory Party's Conduct And Relationship With Signatories May Indicate Intent To Be Bound : Supreme Court

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement is not necessarily non-binding on a non-signatory party. Such party, though not a signatory, may have intended to be bound through its conduct or relationship with the signatory parties. A referral court must determine the issue from a prima facie perspective; although, ultimately, it is the arbitral tribunal which shall decide the same based on evidence."The mutual intent of the parties, relationship of a non-signatory with a signatory, commonality of the subject matter, composite nature of the transactions and performance of the contract are all factors that signify the intention of the non-signatory to be bound by the arbitration agreement. An important factor to be considered by the Courts and Tribunals is the participation of the non-signatory in the performance of the underlying contract", said a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.Relying on its decision in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd, the Court also reiterated that a referral court shall prima facie rule on the existence of the arbitration agreement. Drawing from the decision, it was further observed that the definition of “parties” under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 includes both the signatory as well as non-signatory parties. As such, entities that have not signed the underlying contract (containing the arbitration agreement) may also intend to be bound."...the requirement of a written agreement under Section 7 of the Act, 1996 does not exclude the possibility of binding non-signatory parties if there is a defined legal relationship between the signatory and non-signatory parties. Therefore, the issue as to who is a “party” to an arbitration agreement is primarily an issue of consent. Actions or conduct could be an indicator of the consent of a party to be bound by the arbitration agreement."The Court further said that the intention of the parties to be bound by an arbitration agreement can be gauged from the circumstances that surround the participation of the non-signatory party in the negotiation, performance, and termination of the underlying contract containing such an agreement."...in order to infer consent of the non-signatory party, their involvement in the negotiation or performance of the contract must be positive, direct and substantial and not be merely incidental."Factual BackgroundThe matter arose out of a Family Arrangement Agreement (FAA) entered into between the petitioner-AMP Group and respondent-JRS Group. Representatives of the two groups were part of the same family. Another group viz. the SRG Group was also impleaded as a respondent. It had joined hands with the AMP Group and JRS Group in two entities i.e. Millenium and Deegee.While the AMP Group was supposed to exit from Millenium and acquire shares in Deegee, the JRS and SRG Groups were supposed to exit from Deegee and, the SRG Group to acquire shares in Millenium.Between 2013-2019, various disputes arose between the AMP Group on one side and the JRS and SRG Groups on the other which led to the filing of several proceedings before various forums.After mediation between the parties yielded no result, and the two groups failed to agree on appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in 30 days, petitioner-AMP Group filed the present petition.Submissions of petitioner-AMP GroupPetitioner-AMP Group submitted that though SRG Group was not a signatory to the FAA, it was a veritable party to the arbitration agreement since it participated in the negotiations leading up to the FAA and continued to talk with the parties on the issues pertaining to the implementation of the FAA.Petitioner further contended that execution of the terms of the FAA required involvement and action of the SRG Group. It was also the petitioner's case that all the parties understood that the SRG Group would be a part of the execution and compliance of the FAA's terms and conditions. "Therefore, there was commonality of subject matter and composite transactions, in view of which SRG is a veritable party liable to be referred to arbitration", it said.On the aspect of jurisdiction, the petitioner submitted that a referral court should leave it for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide whether a non-signatory party was indeed a party to the arbitration agreement on the basis of factual evidence and application of legal doctrine. It was also asserted that even a non-signatory should be referred to avoid the risk of its non-appearance before the Arbitral Tribunal and disregard of the award as beyond jurisdiction.Submissions of respondents (JRS Group and SRG Group)The JRS Group gave no-objection to appointment of the Sole Arbitrator nominated by the AMP Group. However, it claimed that SRG Group was not bound by the terms of the FAA since it was not a signatory to the said document. Further, it submitted that the FAA contained the definition of “parties” and the SRG Group was not defined in the...

Arbitration | Non-Signatory Party's Conduct And Relationship With Signatories May Indicate Intent To Be Bound : Supreme Court

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

Arbitration | Non-Signatory Party's Conduct And Relationship With Signatories May Indicate Intent To Be Bound : Supreme Court

Debby Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers