top of page
  • Writer's pictureBrain Booster Articles

GROUP OF COMPANIES DOCTRINE

Author: Shaurya Rana, II year of B.A.,LL.B. from UPES School of Law


GROUP OF COMPANIES DOCTRINE: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN ARBITRATION AND ITS APPLICATION IN INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE


Introduction

Arbitration has become an increasingly popular method for resolving disputes between businesses. In international arbitration, the group of companies doctrine is a principle that has emerged in the context of international commercial arbitration. The doctrine recognizes that a group of companies can be treated as a single entity for the purpose of arbitration, allowing the attribution of liability and the enforcement of arbitration awards against non-signatory companies within the group. This article will explore the evolution of the group of companies doctrine in arbitration and its application in India.


What is the Group of Companies Doctrine?

The group of companies doctrine is a legal principle that recognizes the unity of companies that are part of a corporate group. It is a legal fiction that treats separate legal entities as a single economic entity for the purposes of resolving disputes in arbitration. In other words, the actions of one company within a corporate group may be attributed to the other companies in the group for the purposes of determining their rights and obligations in arbitration.[1][2]


The Evolution of the Group of Companies Doctrine in Arbitration

The origin of the group of companies doctrine can be traced back to the decision of the French Cour de Cassation in the case of SociétéCommerciale de Réassurance v. Erasme, (Ass. Plén., May 31, 1963), in which the court recognized that an arbitration agreement between a parent company and another party could be binding on a subsidiary that was a non-signatory to the agreement. This decision was based on the concept of the unity of economic interest between the parent company and its subsidiary, and the idea that the subsidiary was an "agent" of the parent company in the context of the dispute.[3]


Subsequently, other courts and arbitral tribunals around the world began to adopt and apply the group of companies doctrine in various forms. In the United States, as mentioned earlier, the doctrine was first recognized in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.[4]In England, the doctrine was first applied in the case of Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim& Sons v. Toys "R" Us, Inc.[5]


Since then, the group of companies doctrine has been applied in many jurisdictions around the world. In international commercial arbitration, the doctrine has been used to attribute liability to companies within a corporate group, to pierce the corporate veil, and to apply the principle of estoppel.


How is the Group of Companies Doctrine Applied in Arbitration?

The application of the group of companies doctrine in arbitration is determined by the arbitration rules that the parties have agreed to. Most international arbitration rules, such as the ICC Rules[6] and the UNCITRAL Rules[7], recognize the doctrine and provide guidelines for its application.


Under the ICC Rules, for example, the group of companies doctrine is applied when the arbitration agreement is concluded by one company in the group and the dispute relates to the activities of another company in the group. The doctrine may also be applied when the group of companies has a unity of interest and is controlled by the same persons or entities.[8]


The UNCITRAL Rules, on the other hand, provide that the group of companies doctrine may be applied if the arbitration agreement is concluded by one company in the group and the dispute relates to the activities of another company in the group, or if the group of companies is a single economic unit.[9]

In practice, the application of the group of companies doctrine in arbitration depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The doctrine may be applied to attribute liability to a company that is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, to enforce an arbitration award against a non-signatory, or to prevent a party from denying the existence of an arbitration agreement.


The Application of the Group of Companies Doctrine in India

India is a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and Indian law is broadly supportive of international commercial arbitration. However, the application of the group of companies doctrine in India has been the subject of some controversy.


In India, the group of companies doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court in the case of Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. in 2013. The case involved a dispute between an Indian subsidiary of an American company and an Indian company over a supply contract. The Indian subsidiary sought to avoid the arbitration clause in the contract, arguing that it was not a signatory to the contract and therefore not bound by the arbitration clause. The Supreme Court held that the Indian subsidiary was bound by the arbitration clause, as it was part of a group of companies with a unity of interest.[10][11]


However, subsequent decisions of the Indian courts have not always applied the group of companies doctrine in the same way. In the case of Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. v. Government of India in 2018, the Delhi High Court held that the doctrine could not be applied to bind a non-signatory company to an arbitration agreement. The case involved a production sharing contract between the Indian government, a subsidiary of an American company, and an Indian company. The subsidiary sought to bring a claim against the Indian government under the arbitration clause in the contract, but the Indian government argued that the subsidiary was not a signatory to the contract and therefore not bound by the arbitration clause. The Delhi High Court held that the group of companies doctrine could not be applied in this case, as the subsidiary was not a party to the contract and had not consented to arbitration.[12]


The Delhi High Court decision in Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. v. Government of India has been criticized by some commentators as being inconsistent with the principles of international commercial arbitration. The decision is also at odds with the approach taken by other jurisdictions, where the group of companies doctrine has been applied more broadly.[13]


The Importance of the Group of Companies Doctrine in International Commercial Arbitration

The group of companies doctrine plays an important role in the effective resolution of commercial disputes in the context of international commercial arbitration. This is particularly true in cases where corporate groups are involved, which is a common feature of international commercial transactions.

The doctrine allows for the attribution of liability to companies within a corporate group, even if they are not signatories to the arbitration agreement or award. This is because the doctrine recognizes that a group of companies can be treated as a single entity for the purpose of arbitration.


By allowing for the attribution of liability to non-signatory companies within a group, the group of companies doctrine helps to ensure that all parties to a dispute are held accountable for their actions. This is essential to the effective resolution of commercial disputes, as it helps to prevent non-signatory companies within a group from avoiding their responsibilities.


The doctrine also helps to promote the efficient resolution of commercial disputes. By allowing for the enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards against non-signatory companies within a group, the doctrine helps to ensure that disputes can be resolved quickly and efficiently. This is particularly important in the context of international commercial transactions, where time is often of the essence.


Finally, the group of companies doctrine helps to promote legal certainty and predictability in the context of international commercial arbitration. By providing a clear and consistent framework for the attribution of liability to companies within a corporate group, the doctrine helps to ensure that all parties to a dispute are aware of their rights and responsibilities under the law. This promotes legal certainty and predictability, which are essential to the effective resolution of commercial disputes.


In conclusion, the group of companies doctrine plays a crucial role in the effective resolution of commercial disputes in the context of international commercial arbitration. By allowing for the attribution of liability to non-signatory companies within a group, the doctrine helps to ensure that all parties to a dispute are held accountable for their actions. This promotes legal certainty, efficiency, and predictability in the resolution of commercial disputes, which are essential to the effective functioning of the international commercial system.[14]


Conclusion

In conclusion, the group of companies doctrine has emerged as an important principle in international commercial arbitration, allowing for the attribution of liability and the enforcement of arbitration awards against non-signatory companies within a group. While the doctrine was first recognized in 1963, its application in India has been the subject of some controversy.


The Indian courts have recognized the group of companies doctrine in some cases, such as Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.,[15] but have been more reluctant to apply it in others, such as Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. v. Government of India.[16] The latter case has been criticized by some commentators as being inconsistent with the principles of international commercial arbitration.


Notwithstanding the Indian courts' reluctance to apply the group of companies doctrine in some cases, the doctrine remains an important principle in international commercial arbitration. In today's globalized economy, corporate groups are a common feature of business, and the ability to attribute liability and enforce arbitration agreements and awards against non-signatory companies within a group is essential to the effective resolution of commercial disputes.


It is hoped that Indian courts will adopt a more consistent approach to the group of companies doctrine in the future, recognizing its importance in the context of international commercial arbitration. This will help to ensure that India remains an attractive destination for international commercial arbitration, and that businesses are able to resolve their disputes effectively and efficiently in accordance with the principles of international law.

[1] Born, Gary. International Commercial Arbitration (2nd ed., 2014). [2]Redfern, Alan and Martin Hunter. Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (4th ed., 2004). [3]SociétéCommerciale de Réassurance v. Erasme, (Ass. Plén., May 31, 1963). [4]Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). [5]Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim& Sons v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., [2004] EWCA Civ 437. [6]International Chamber of Commerce. ICC Rules of Arbitration. 2021 ed. Paris: International Chamber of Commerce, 2021. [7]UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985). [8]Supra note 6. [9]Supra note 7. [10]Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., (2013) 1 SCC 641. [11]Sharma, Rajeev. "Group of Companies Doctrine and Its Application in India." Indian Journal of Arbitration Law, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2017). [12]Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. v. Government of India, (2018) 1 SCC 718. [13]Id. [14]Shukla, Arpita. "The Importance of the Group of Companies Doctrine in International Commercial Arbitration." International Journal of Research and Analysis, Vol. 5, Issue 4 (2018). [15]Supra note 10. [16]Supra note 12.

Comments


bottom of page