In a recent ruling, the Delhi
High Court addressed an important aspect of arbitration law pertaining to the
inclusion of Directors as parties to arbitration proceedings under the 'Group
of Companies' doctrine. The judgment, rendered in the case of Vingro Developers
Private Limited v. Nitya Shree Developers Private Limited, clarifies the scope
of the doctrine and its applicability to Directors. This article provides an
overview of the case and the Court's key observations.
Background:
The case was initiated through a petition filed under Section 11
of the Arbitration Act. The Petitioner, Vingro Developers Private Limited, had
entered into twelve Builder Buyer Agreements (BBAs) with the Respondent, Nitya
Shree Developers Private Limited, for the purchase of plots in the 'RLF City'
project. Due to the Respondent's failure to deliver possession of the plots as
per the agreed terms, the Petitioner invoked arbitration under Section 21 of
the Arbitration Act.
Arguments:
The Petitioner contended that the Directors of the Respondent
company, who were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, should be made
parties to the arbitration proceedings based on the application of the 'Group
of Companies' doctrine. Citing the Cox and Kings judgment, the Petitioner
asserted that the doctrine should bind non-signatories to the arbitration
agreement. The Petitioner also highlighted that the Directors had signed the
BBAs on behalf of the Respondent, and their collective response indicated their
inseparability from the Respondent.
The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Directors were
not party to the BBAs and therefore should not be encompassed by the
arbitration clause. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sundaram
Finance Ltd. v. T. Thankam, which stated that arbitration cannot be invoked
against parties who are not covered by or are not party to the arbitration
agreement.
Court's Observations:
The Delhi High Court carefully examined the central issue of
whether the Directors, as non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, could
be bound by the agreement based on the Group of Companies doctrine. The Court
acknowledged its limited power under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act to
determine the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Referring to precedent cases such as Cox and Kings and Cheran
Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., the Court emphasized that the
application of the Group of Companies doctrine requires a common intention
among the parties to bind non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. The Court
further noted that the Directors, as agents of the Respondent company, were
only representatives and could not be held personally liable.
Relying on the Indian Contract Act, the Court clarified that in
the absence of an intention to bind a non-signatory to the agreement, the Directors
could not be made parties to the arbitration proceedings. The Court emphasized
that an agent cannot be held liable for acts performed on behalf of a known
principal unless specific conditions are fulfilled.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court concluded that, considering the relationship
between the Respondent company and its Directors as that of a principal and
agent, the Directors could not be included as parties to the arbitration
proceedings under the Group of Companies doctrine. Accordingly, the Court
appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the Petitioner and
the Respondent company.
This ruling provides clarity on the scope and applicability of the
Group of Companies doctrine in arbitration cases involving Directors. It
reinforces the principle that unless there is a specific intention to bind
non-signatories, Directors should not be made parties to arbitration
proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment