https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301120 A Singapore-seated arbitration governed by SIAC Rules was treated as a foreign-seated arbitration falling under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, so Part I did not apply merely because the parties were Indian entities. The Court held that, on the materials pleaded, a non-signatory like GMR Energy could be referred to arbitration on exceptional alter ego and guarantor theories where the transaction was composite and the factual matrix showed assumed obligations and common control. It further held that piercing the corporate veil was not per se non-arbitrable and that the Rule 7 objection did not invalidate invocation of arbitration against GMR Energy. The interim injunction was vacated and the merits were left to the tribunal. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Mar 2022 07:46:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301120 A Singapore-seated arbitration governed by SIAC Rules was treated as a foreign-seated arbitration falling under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, so Part I did not apply merely because the parties were Indian entities. The Court held that, on the materials pleaded, a non-signatory like GMR Energy could be referred to arbitration on exceptional alter ego and guarantor theories where the transaction was composite and the factual matrix showed assumed obligations and common control. It further held that piercing the corporate veil was not per se non-arbitrable and that the Rule 7 objection did not invalidate invocation of arbitration against GMR Energy. The interim injunction was vacated and the merits were left to the tribunal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301120