Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Countering the arguments advanced on behalf of GMR Energy, learned counsel for Doosan India submits that invocation of arbitration against the alter ego of a signatory is a well recognized principle not only in India but also in Singapore which is the chosen seat of arbitration. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as Chloro Controls (supra). Relying upon 2009 SGHC 42 Jiang Haiying vs. Tan Lim Hui and Anr. a decision of the High Court of Singapore, learned counsel contends that since parties agreed to arbitration under the SIAC Rules with the seat of arbitration being at Singapore, Part-II of the Arbitration Act would apply. Referring to Sections 44 and 45 of the Arbitration Act it is contended that the two provisions recognize a situation where an arbitration agreement would extend to a non- signatory to a contract.

19. Further refuting the contention of learned counsel for GMR Energy that a non-party to the arbitration agreement can be impleaded only after invocation of Rule 7 of the SIAC Rules it is contended that the concept of joinder is different from invoking an arbitration agreement against an alter ego. Rule 7 of the SIAC Rules would apply after Rule 3 and as GMR Energy has been named as a party to the arbitration in accordance with Rule 3, Rule 7 has no application. In any case, Rule 7 of the SIAC Rules is not mandatory but directory in nature and has no application to the facts of the present case. It is thus prayed that the injunction granted in favour of GMR Energy be vacated and arbitration be permitted to be carried out as the Tribunal under the Singapore law is competent to decide the issue of alter ego.

20. On contentions raised by the parties five issues which need determination by this Court are : (i) Whether the arbitration that commenced at Singapore pursuant to Arb. 316/16/ACU would fall under Part-I or Part-II of the Arbitration Act ? (ii) Whether on the basis of pleas in the notice of arbitration issued by Doosan India a case is made out by Doosan India to subject GMR Energy to arbitration with GCEL and GIL? (iii) Whether the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil? (iv) In the present suit whether this Court will form a prima facie opinion on the issue of alter ego or return a finding? (v) Whether the invocation of arbitration against GMR Energy is contrary to Rule 7 of the SIAC Rules?