https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105435 Contractual privity may be inferred from the agreement text, preamble, correspondence, and the parties' conduct where the respondent dealt throughout with the foreign parent company and accepted payment through the petitioner's representative. On that basis, the objection that the Indian subsidiary lacked privity failed. A foreign company is not barred from maintaining proceedings merely because it acts through a constituted attorney; the statutory restriction applies only if it had an established place of business in India at the relevant time. As no such permanent and specific business place was shown, the objection under the Companies Act, 1956 failed and the dispute was directed to arbitration, including the claims and counter-claims. en-us Tue, 22 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:37:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105435 Contractual privity may be inferred from the agreement text, preamble, correspondence, and the parties' conduct where the respondent dealt throughout with the foreign parent company and accepted payment through the petitioner's representative. On that basis, the objection that the Indian subsidiary lacked privity failed. A foreign company is not barred from maintaining proceedings merely because it acts through a constituted attorney; the statutory restriction applies only if it had an established place of business in India at the relevant time. As no such permanent and specific business place was shown, the objection under the Companies Act, 1956 failed and the dispute was directed to arbitration, including the claims and counter-claims. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 22 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105435