This website is only for informational purposes. Visitors are requested to note that the information is intended to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Juris Corp does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause.

This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation. The reader must not consider the information contained herein to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship, must not rely on information provided herein and must seek independent advice. Transmission, receipt or use of any information on this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this website.

Furthermore, Juris Corp does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this web site. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to inherent risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending e-mail over the internet.

By clicking on the "I understand and agree" button below, the user acknowledges that:

  • This website is not a mode of advertisement, promotion, personal communication, or solicitation of any sort whatsoever and the user wishes to gain information about us for his/her own reasons;
  • Entering into this website does not establish a lawyer-client relationship.

We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on information provided under this website. In cases where the user has any legal issues, he/she must seek independent legal advice.

JC - Legal Updates - Contours of the Group of Companies Doctrine needs to be settled by a larger bench - Supreme Court of India

Legal Updates

11 May 2022

Contours of the Group of Companies Doctrine needs to be settled by a larger bench - Supreme Court of India

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”), in the matter of Cox and Kings Limited V. SAP India Private Limited & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2020 decided on 6th May 2022 took note of the inconsistencies in terms of the judicial pronouncements for the ‘Group of Companies Doctrine’ (“Doctrine”) and referred the said issue to a larger bench.

This Doctrine has been invoked in arbitrations to either extend the arbitration agreement or bind a non-­ signatory affiliate of the contracting party to the arbitration clause.

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India analysed the sustainability of the Doctrine and inter alia pointed out that

(A)   The application of the Doctrine in Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., (2013) 1 SCC 641 (“Chloro Controls”) is based on the intent of the parties to include a non-signatory to the arbitral proceedings without adhering to the contractual principles on the basis of which such intent is interpreted.

(B)   Joinder of non-­ signatories based on the notion of “single economic unit” ignores commercial reality and the importance of treating different parties within the same group of companies as separate legal entities.

(C)   A broad interpretation of the Doctrine is at odds with the principle of party autonomy.

(D)  The line of judgments by this Court, beginning with Chloro Controls, seems to be premised more on convenience and economic efficiency in resolution of disputes rather than a consistent and clear legal doctrine which respects party autonomy and intent.

(E)   The phrase “claiming through or under” as provided in Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), as amended via the Arbitration Amendment Act, 2016, may not be a legitimate basis for reading the Group of Companies Doctrine into Indian law.

(F)   The term “parties” under Section 2(1)(h) of the Act has not been amended despite the changes introduced in Section 8 of the Act.

The bench took note of the inconsistencies that exist in terms of the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court regarding the underlying basis for the Doctrine and referred the following questions to a larger bench:-

1.   Whether phrase ‘claiming through or under’ in Sections 8 and 11 could be interpreted to include Group of Companies Doctrine?

2.   Whether the Group of Companies Doctrine as expounded by Chloro Control Case (supra) and subsequent judgments are valid in law?

3.  Whether the Group of Companies Doctrine should be read into Section 8 of the Act or whether it can exist in Indian jurisprudence independent of any statutory provision?

4.   Whether the Group of Companies Doctrine should continue to be invoked on the basis of the principle of ‘single economic reality’?

5.  Whether the Group of Companies Doctrine should be construed as a means of interpreting the implied consent or intent to arbitrate between the parties?

6.  Whether the principles of alter ego and/or piercing the corporate veil can alone justify pressing the Group of Companies Doctrine into operation even in the absence of implied consent?

The court observed that the Doctrine must be applied with caution and mere fact that a non-signatory is a member of a group of affiliated companies will not be sufficient to claim extension of the arbitration agreement to the non-signatory.


For any further information, please contact Mr. Shubhabrata Chakraborti (shubhabrata.chakraborti@jclex.com) or Mr. Dhruv Malik (dhruv.malik@jclex.com).