“45. The power of the judicial authority to refer the parties to arbitration.- Notwithstanding the provisions of Part I or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), a judicial authority, when it commenced legal action in a case in which the parties entered into an agreement pursuant to Section 44, at the request of one of the parties or a person asserting its right, the parties to an arbitration proceeding, unless it finds that the agreement is null, inoperative or inoperative.” “66. Although the scope of an arbitration agreement is limited to the parties who have entered into it and to those who are entitled to it, under English law, the courts have also, in some cases, applied the Group of Companies Doctrine. This doctrine has developed in an international context where an arbitration agreement concluded by a company belonging to a group of companies may bind its non-signatory related enterprises or its brother or mother interests, where circumstances show that the mutual intention of all parties was the union of non-signatory signatories and partners. This theory has been applied in a series of arbitrations to justify a court assuming the jurisdiction of a party that is not a party to the contract that contains the arbitration agreement. [“Russell on arbitration” (Twenty Third Edition) If you look at the “status” of a contract, you will find two lists: the signatories and the parties. The statute indicates the date on which each state became a signatory and/or party. In Peterson Farms Inc. v.C-M Farming Ltd.18, the respondent sought, in arbitration proceedings, a statement from the Court that certain findings in an arbitration decision were incompetent, since those findings concerned members of the group of applicants who did not enter into a binding arbitration agreement with the respondent. The respondent`s argument was rejected by the Court of Arbitration because the Tribunal accepted the “business group” doctrine. The award was challenged in the British Commercial Court by the respondent, who found that the Court of Arbitration`s decision was “open to a number of essential criticisms” and was “seriously wrong legally”.
In addition, it was found that the question of whether the respondent had entered into a contract with the other members of the applicants` group is subject to the contract law, which is Arkansas law and which was approved by the parties, is the same as English law. On this basis, the Commercial Court also found that the “business group” doctrine was “not an integral part of English law” and set aside the sentence. (f) Cheran Properties-Execution of Arbitration Award against non-signatories and “intention of the parties” In Chloro Controls (supra), the facts included a principal agreement, a shareholder pact, between an Indian and a foreign party, with English law the right to power and London is the seat of the arbitration procedure, and several agreements bound by the aforementioned shareholder agreement, but not between the same parties. The Supreme Court considered whether all of these parties could be referred to a single arbitration proceeding and whether such an injunction was contrary to its earlier decision Sukanya Holdings (supra), and found that Sukanya Holdings (see above) was taken under section 8 of the Act, whereas the facts in that case fell within the scope of section 45 of the Act, which was broadly interpreted. It was found that the phrase “person who appears by or under” in section 45 of the Act in section 45 of the Act, which is in section 45 of the Act, could have a much broader meaning and “within its scope would mean the multi-party agreement and take it within its scope, albeit in exceptional cases.”