Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.23 seconds)Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd vs Canara Bank on 8 August, 2019
In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs. Canara bank reported
in 2019 SCC Online SC 995, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out the
circumstances when the Group of Companies Doctrine as laid down in
Chloro Control (I) Pvt. Ltd. case referred to supra can be invoked to make
a non-signatory to be bound by an arbitration clause. They are as follows:
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Chloro Controls(I) P.Ltd vs Severn Trent Water Purification Inc ... on 28 September, 2012
In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs. Canara bank reported
in 2019 SCC Online SC 995, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out the
circumstances when the Group of Companies Doctrine as laid down in
Chloro Control (I) Pvt. Ltd. case referred to supra can be invoked to make
a non-signatory to be bound by an arbitration clause. They are as follows:
National Agricultural Co-Op. ... vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007
30. The Doctrine of separability applies to an Arbitration
agreement. The Doctrine of separability means that an Arbitration clause
inserted in a contract is a separate agreement in the underlying contract.
23/29
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
There is no such nexus between the Arbitration clause and the underlying
contract. Though the existence of the contract is necessary for
incorporating the terms of an Arbitration clause, the Arbitration agreement
is a separate and distinctive agreement which is the basis for Arbitration as
defined under the Principle of separability. The Doctrine of separability
does not affect the validity of other obligations in the contract. The
Doctrine of separability means that even if an Arbitration is included in the
underlying contract, it will be treated as an independent one. Section 16(1)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is based on the Doctrine of
separability and it clearly states that an Arbitration clause included in the
contract shall be treated as a separate and an independent agreement of the
other terms of the contract and if the Arbitral Tribunal held the contract
null and void, it will not necessarily mean or entail ipso jure the invalidity
of the Arbitration clause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd.
vs Gains Trading Ltd. reported in 2007 5 SCC 692 held that Arbitration
clause is to be treated independently from the main contract. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that if the contract is held null and void, then the
24/29
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2049 of 2021
Arbitration clause cannot be considered to be null and void too. The
Doctrine of separability just prevents the Arbitration clause from being
affected by the underlying contract. Hence, the clause is an indispensable
part of the contract.