https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313853 Non-signatories were referred to arbitration because the surrounding documents, correspondence and transaction structure showed mutual intent, common control, cross-shareholding and participation in a composite commercial arrangement, so the Group of Companies doctrine was applied. Letters dated 26 June 2018 were construed as letters of comfort, not guarantees, because they did not contain an enforceable promise to discharge the borrower's liability on default as required for a contract of guarantee. The interim relief controversy under Section 9 was not finally decided by the Court; it was directed to be dealt with by the arbitral forum, and the prior interim protection continued until the arbitrator decided the pending applications. en-us Fri, 03 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 May 2024 08:02:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313853 Non-signatories were referred to arbitration because the surrounding documents, correspondence and transaction structure showed mutual intent, common control, cross-shareholding and participation in a composite commercial arrangement, so the Group of Companies doctrine was applied. Letters dated 26 June 2018 were construed as letters of comfort, not guarantees, because they did not contain an enforceable promise to discharge the borrower's liability on default as required for a contract of guarantee. The interim relief controversy under Section 9 was not finally decided by the Court; it was directed to be dealt with by the arbitral forum, and the prior interim protection continued until the arbitrator decided the pending applications. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313853