https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457696 Arbitration depends on consent, and a non-signatory shareholder or managing director cannot be bound to the arbitration agreement merely because he controls or manages the company. The tribunal's jurisdiction was confined to parties who actually agreed to arbitrate, and there was no shown implied consent by the petitioner in his personal capacity. The tribunal also could not pierce the corporate veil on its own, because that exceptional power rests with courts and requires proof of fraud, sham, abuse, or misuse of the corporate form. No such foundation was established, so the award could not be sustained against the petitioner. en-us Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2024 23:06:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457696 Arbitration depends on consent, and a non-signatory shareholder or managing director cannot be bound to the arbitration agreement merely because he controls or manages the company. The tribunal's jurisdiction was confined to parties who actually agreed to arbitrate, and there was no shown implied consent by the petitioner in his personal capacity. The tribunal also could not pierce the corporate veil on its own, because that exceptional power rests with courts and requires proof of fraud, sham, abuse, or misuse of the corporate form. No such foundation was established, so the award could not be sustained against the petitioner. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457696