17 IL-FS Financial Services v. Aditya Khaitan – Ors, TA No 12 of 2019 and CS No. 177 of 2019 (order of 3 September 2019). It should be noted that in this case, the Hon`ble Calcutta High Court relied on Mahanagar Telephone Nigam (supra) not as part of mandatory non-signatures of an arbitration agreement, but on the adoption of a referral order that included the respondents, all of whom belonged to a single group with a «close group structure with strong organizational and financial ties. , around a single economic entity» 2000. , the disposal or charge or disposal of their assets, although not all of the defendant companies have signed an agreement with the petitioner (see item 25 above). The New York Convention, which brings together 164 parties in all major economies of the world, aims to promote the recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreements and arbitration agreements and to promote greater uniformity between national arbitration laws. The agreement helps to ensure that the parties refer disputes to arbitration is respected and that any arbitral award resulting from them is applied independently of the parties` original jurisdiction. Efforts to achieve similar predictability in the enforcement of foreign court decisions are still at an early stage. The Hague Convention on Judgments, which aims to establish uniform rules for cross-border recognition and enforcement of certain civil and trade decisions, is not yet in force and has only been signed by Uruguay and Ukraine. However, the principles of Cheran Properties (supra) have been adopted with caution and the Supreme Court has made a strong commitment that the facts and circumstances of each case be assessed in context prior to the introduction of a legal principle. In Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited vs. Reynders Label Printing India Private Limited and Ors.14, in accordance with the Cheran Espousal (supra) above, the Supreme Court found that, unless the non-signatory intends to be bound by the arbitration agreement, it cannot be referred to arbitration.
In this case, the petitioner had attempted to summon the respondent (with whom he had entered into an agreement) and a respondent`s group company (which had not signed an agreement) in arbitration, invoking the «group of companies» doctrine. Although a clause in the above agreement states that the company of the unsigned group would compensate the petitioner in the event of a breach of the respondent, it was found that it was not involved in any other way in the negotiations or in the implementation of that agreement. The Court has the following opinion: (iii) The non-signatory is directly related to the undersigned party where the parties participate in the realization of a composite transaction, i.e. a transaction with a common or common commercial objective that would not be possible without the participation of the non-signatory party. The award is often interpreted as an indication that the company`s relationship within the group was sufficient to determine the jurisdiction of the court and was therefore criticized.