<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (4) TMI 1350 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421684</link>
    <description>An arbitration agreement under Section 7 binds signatories, but a non-signatory group company may be joined in exceptional cases where mutual intention, relationship between entities, common subject matter, composite transaction, and contract performance justify the group of companies doctrine. The tribunal rejected joinder on the basis that the company was not a contract party, but it did so without first deciding the claimant&#039;s discovery and inspection request for material said to support the doctrine. By leaving that evidentiary application unresolved and failing to assess the pleaded basis for lifting the corporate veil, the interim award was found unsustainable and set aside, along with the High Court judgment affirming it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Apr 2022 08:08:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1350 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421684</link>
      <description>An arbitration agreement under Section 7 binds signatories, but a non-signatory group company may be joined in exceptional cases where mutual intention, relationship between entities, common subject matter, composite transaction, and contract performance justify the group of companies doctrine. The tribunal rejected joinder on the basis that the company was not a contract party, but it did so without first deciding the claimant&#039;s discovery and inspection request for material said to support the doctrine. By leaving that evidentiary application unresolved and failing to assess the pleaded basis for lifting the corporate veil, the interim award was found unsustainable and set aside, along with the High Court judgment affirming it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>