The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Tag: law

  • A New Chapter in India’s Insolvency Law: What the 2025 Amendments Mean for Stakeholders

    A New Chapter in India’s Insolvency Law: What the 2025 Amendments Mean for Stakeholders

    BY Suprava Sahu, Fourth-Year student at gnlu, Gandhinagar
    INTRODUCTION

    The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) marked a shift in India’s approach to the corporate resolution process. By changing a fragmented framework into a unified, creditor-centric process, IBC aimed to expedite the resolution of non-performing assets and enhance the ease of doing business. While studies have highlighted that IBC succeeded in improving recovery rates and reducing the timelines, structural issues began to surface as the code matured. Delays in the resolution, underutilization of viable assets, and limited investor participation called for reform.

    Recognizing this need, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) introduced the IBBI ((Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Fourth Amendment Regulations 2025 which aim to address the inefficiencies and enhance the effectiveness of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’). Key features of this amendment include enabling part-wise resolution of corporate debtors, harmonizing payment timelines for dissenting creditors, and mandating the presentation of all resolution plans to the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’).

    The piece unpacks whether the regulatory changes align with the IBC and its intended goals or are just a mere paper over the institutional cracks.

    DIAGNOSING THE IBC’S STRUCTURE

    IBC rests on three foundational pillars: maximizing the value of assets, ensuring a time-bound insolvency process, and balancing the interests of all stakeholders. These principles are affirmed as the foundational principle behind the IBC by cases like Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta.

    Yet these principles exist in tension. For example, despite the 190–270-day timeline for the CIRP, the IBBI’s quarterly report shows that  more than 60% of the CIRPs have exceeded the timelines, which leads to diminished asset value, deters strategic investors, and disrupts the objective of value maximization.

    The framework also gives substantial control to financial creditors via the CoC, with operational creditors having a very limited say. This structure offers swift decision making it has attracted criticism for privileging institutional lenders at the cost of small creditors. The introduction of staged payments for dissenting creditors and asset-specific resolution under the new regulations can be seen as a regulatory response to this imbalance.

    The IBC initially favoured a rigid process to instill discipline in resolution, but a one-size-fits-all model may stifle innovation. Scholars have argued that insolvency systems need to adapt to varied market structures and varied market structures especially in emerging economies. A key question remains: can a rigid, rule-bound structure effectively adapt to the complexities of a diverse insolvency system? The amendments must be understood not as isolated tweaks but as strategic interventions to reconcile the tensions inbuilt in the IBC’s design.

    DISSECTING THE KEY AMENDMENTS

    The amendment introduces four main changes each targeting to address long-standing inefficiencies and gaps in the stakeholder engagement.

    • Part-wise Resolution of Corporate Debtors

    The amended regulations now allow the Resolution Professionals (‘RPs’)to invite resolution plans for specific business segments of the corporate debtor in addition to the entire company. This creates a dual-track mechanism that offers unprecedented flexibility to the CoC and RPs. It is grounded on the fact that many insolvency cases involve heterogeneous assets, some of which are viable, some of which are distressed. Under the earlier regime, focusing on a holistic resolution often led to delayed proceedings and discouraged potential resolution applicants who were only interested in certain businesses. A similar model has been employed in jurisdictions like UK, where the pre-pack administrative sales and partial business transfers allow administrators to sell parts of their enterprise to recover the maximum value. Studies have advocated for asset-wise flexibility as a strategy to reduce liquidation rates and protect value.

    However, this reform risks of cherry picking, where bidders might try to choose profitable units while leaving liabilities and nonperforming divisions. This can potentially undermine the equitable treatment of creditors and complicate the valuation standard and fair assessment. This concern was evident in cases like Jet Airways where bidders sought profitable slots while avoiding liabilities. Jurisdictions like the UK mitigate this through independent scrutiny in pre-pack sales, a safeguard which India could adapt.

    • Harmonized Payment Timelines for Dissenting Creditors

    In cases like Jaypee Kensington and Essar Steel, the Supreme Court upheld that dissenting creditors must receive at least the liquidation value but left ambiguity on payment. Previously, the treatment of dissenting creditors lacked clarity, especially around the payment timelines. The amendment resolves this ambiguity by laying down a clear rule. . By ensuring that dissenters are not disadvantaged for opposing the majority, it reinforces a sense of procedural justice and also encourages more critical scrutiny of resolution plans within the CoC. It seeks to balance the majority rule with individual creditor rights, thereby enhancing the quality of proceedings.

    But, this provision could also complicate cash flow planning for resolution applicants and disincentivize performance-based payouts. Early, mandatory payouts to dissenters could affect plan viability and reduce the flexibility needed for restructuring. There is also a risk that dissenters may use their position to strategically extract early payments, leading to non-cooperation or tactical dissent – an issue which the amendment has left unaddressed.

    The balancing act between fairness and functionality can be seen as a reform which not just enhances inclusivity but also introduces a new operational pressures.  

    • Enhanced role for interim finance providers

    Another noteworthy intervention is that the CoC may now direct RPs to invite interim finance providers to attend CoC meetings as observers. These entities will not have voting rights but their presence is expected to improve the informational symmetry within the decision-making process. Finance providers have more risk when they are lending to distressed entities. Allowing them to observe deliberation offers more visibility into how their funds are being used and enhances lender confidence. From a stakeholder theory perspective, this inclusion marks a shift away from creditor dominance towards a more pluralist approach. This was also argued by Harvard Professor Robert Clark, who stated that insolvency regimes must recognize the varied capital interests involved in business rescue.

    While the introduction of interim finance providers promotes transparency and may increase lender confidence, the observer status needs to be carefully managed. Without clear boundaries, non-voting participants could still exert indirect influence on CoC deliberations or access sensitive information. To mitigate such risks, the IBBI could consider issuing guidelines to standardize observer conduct. This highlights a broader concern – expanding stakeholder involvement without proper guardrails, which may create issues in the already complex process.

    • Mandatory Presentation of All Resolution Plans to the CoC

    Earlier, RPs would filter out non-compliant plans and only present eligible ones to the CoC. The new amendment mandates all resolution plans to be submitted to the CoC along with the details of non-compliance. This reform shifts from RP discretion to CoC empowerment. It repositions the RP as a facilitator and reduces the risk of biased exclusion of potential plans.

    The amendment enhances transparency and aligns with the principles of creditor autonomy, which states that the legitimacy of the insolvency process depends not only on outcomes but on stakeholder confidence in the process. It also carries a risk of “decision fatigue” if the CoC is flooded with irrelevant non-viable proposals. The RP’s expert assessment should still carry some weight and structured formats for presenting non-compliant plans may be needed to make this reform operationally sound.

    Taken together, the amendments do not merely fix operational gaps they reflect a broader evolution of India’s insolvency framework from rigidity to responsiveness.

    STAKEHOLDER IMPLICATIONS & CONCERNS

    The regulation significantly rebalances roles within the CIRP, with distinct implications for each stakeholder. For Financial Creditors, part-wise resolutions, allowing staged payments and overseeing finance participants through the CoC has deepened their influence. This aligns with the creditor-in-control model, which states that power demands fiduciary accountability. Dominant creditors could steer outcomes for selective benefit, risking intra-creditor conflicts previously flagged by IBBI.

    Dissenting creditors now gain recognition through statute in phased payouts, ensuring they receive pro rata payments before consenting creditors at each stage. However, operational creditors remain outside the decision-making process, raising concerns about continued marginalization. This concern was also highlighted by IBBI that insolvency regimes that overlook smaller creditors risk creating long-term trust deficits in the process. RPs must now present all resolution plans, including the non-compliant ones to the CoC. This not just curtails arbitrary filtering but also increases the administrative burden.. Beyond the RP’s procedural role, the reforms also alter the landscape for resolution applicants.  The amendment benefits RPs by offering flexibility to bid for specific parts of a debtor. This may attract specialized investors and increase participation. However, unless the procedural efficiencies are addressed alongside the increased discretion, both RPs and applicants may find themselves in navigating through a system which is transparent but increasingly complex.

    CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD

    The Fourth Amendment to the CIRP reflects a bold move that seeks to move from a procedural rigidity towards an adaptive resolution strategy. The reforms aim to align the IBC more closely with the global best practices which are mainly focused on value maximization and creditor democracy. Yet as numerous scholars have emphasized insolvency reform is as much about institutional capability and procedural discipline as it is about legal design. The real test would lie in implementation, how the CoCs exercise their enhanced discretion and how RPs manage rising procedural complexity. Equally important is ensuring that small creditors, operational stakeholders and dissenters are not left behind.

    Going forward, further reforms are needed which include standard guidelines for plan evaluation, better institutional support and capacity upgrades for the NCLTs. Without these, the system risks duplicating the old inefficiencies. Overall, the 2025 reform represents a necessary evolution, but whether it becomes a turning point or a missed opportunity will depend on how effectively the ecosystem responds.

  • Addressing the Silence: Security for Costs in India’s Arbitration Landscape (Part II)

    Addressing the Silence: Security for Costs in India’s Arbitration Landscape (Part II)

    BY Pranav Gupta and Aashi Sharma Year, RGNUL, Punjab

    Having discussed the concept of Security for Costs and International Precedents of Investment Arbitration, this part will delve into precedents of Commercial Arbitration and potential solution for the security for cost puzzle.

    B. Commercial Arbitration Procedure:

    The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, being a foundational framework, empowers the tribunal to order SfC under Article 17(2)(c), after being amended in 2006. The ambiguous drafting of the provision fell prey to a much-anticipated debate,[i] with critics arguing it fails to clearly address the issue of SfC. It led to a proposal[ii] for amending Article 17(2)(c) by adding words “or securing” after “assets” to signify security of some sort. Despite this, the Model Law continues to influence the rules of major arbitral institutions like the London Court for International Arbitration Rules (“LCIA Rules”) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules (“SIAC Rules”).

    Article 25.2 under the LCIA rules grants the arbitral tribunal power to order for SfC as mirrored by Article 38(3) of the English Arbitration Act, 1996 which is the governing law of arbitrations seated in England and Wales. In the cases of Fernhill Mining Ltd. and Re Unisoft Group (No. 2), the judges devised a three-pronged test for granting SfC: Firstly, there must be “reasons to believe” that the claimant will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if unsuccessful in the claim. Secondly, there must be a balancing of the interest[iii] of the defendant and the claimant by protecting the defendant against impecunious claims while not preventing the claimant from proceeding with a meritorious claim. Thirdly, the conduct of the party[iv] seeking a SfC must not suggest an attempt to stifle a meritorious claim.

    Rule 48 of the SIAC Rules 2025 empowers the arbitral tribunal to order for SfC. Notably, both the LCIA and SIAC Rules distinguishes between SfC and ‘security for the amount in dispute’, with LCIA Article 25.1(i) and Article 25.2 addressing each separately, in the similar way as SIAC Rule 48 and 49 do.

    A Possible Solution to the Security for Costs Puzzle

    As the authors earlier observed that The Arbitration Act doesn’t possess any express provision for awarding SfC, leading courts to resort to section 9 of The Act, an approach later debunked by the Delhi High Court. However, this contentious issue gained prominence again with the landmark judgement of Tomorrow Sales Agency. The case remains landmark, being the first Indian case to expressly deal with the issue of SfC, with the earlier cases touching the issue only in civil or implied contexts. The case led to the conclusion that SfC couldn’t be ordered against a third-party funder, who is not impleaded as a party to the present arbitration, though the Single Judge Bench upholding the court’s power to grant such a relief under Section 9. However, the judgment leaves ambiguity regarding the particular sub-clause under which SfC may be granted, which the author tries to address by providing a two-prong solution.

    As an ad-hoc solution, the authors prescribe the usage of sub-clause (e) of section 9(1)(ii) of The Arbitration Act, which provides the power to grant any ‘other interim measure of protection as may appear to the court to be just and convenient’. The above usage would be consistent with firstly with the Tomorrow Sales Agency case as it implies the power to order such measure under section 9 of The Act and secondly with the modern interpretation of section 9, where courts emphasised its exercise ex debito justitiae to uphold the efficiency of arbitration.

    As a permanent solution, the authors suggest the addition of an express provision to The Arbitration Act. The same can be added by drawing inspiration from the LCIA Rules and the SIAC Rules’ separate provisions for ‘SfC’ and ‘securing the amount in dispute’, further building on the specifics of the concept laid down in Rule 53 of ICSID Rules, with particular emphasis on the above mentioned Indian precedents. An illustrative draft for the provision adopting the above considerations is provided below:

    • “Section XZ: Award of Security for Costs
    • Upon the request of a party, the Arbitral Tribunal may order any other party to provide Security for Costs to the other party.
    • In determining the Security for Costs award, the tribunal shall consider all the relevant circumstances, including:
    • that party’s ability or willingness to comply with an adverse decision on costs;
    • the effect that such an order may have on that party’s ability to pursue its claims or counterclaim;
    • the conduct of the parties;
    • any other consideration which the tribunal considers just and necessary.

    Provided that the tribunal while considering an application for Security for Costs must not prejudge the dispute on the merits.

    • The Tribunal shall consider all evidence adduced in relation to the circumstances in paragraph (2), including the existence of third-party funding.

    Provided that the mere existence of a third-party funding arrangement would not by itself lead to an order for Security for Costs.

    • The Tribunal may at any time modify or revoke its order on Security for Costs, on its own initiative or upon a party’s request.”

    Hence, in light of increasing reliance on mechanisms such as TPF, the absence of a dedicated provision for SfC remains a glaring procedural gap. While, the Indian courts have tried to bridge this void through the broad interpretations of section 9 of The Arbitration Act, a coherent solution requires both an ad interim interpretive approach, through the invocation of sub-clause (e) of Section 9(1)(ii) and a long-term legislative amendment explicitly incorporating SfC as a standalone provision. Such a provision must be drawn from international frameworks such as the ICSID, LCIA, and SIAC Rules, ensuring India’s credibility as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

    [i] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Report of the Working Group on Arbitration and Conciliation on the work of its forty-seventh session (Vienna, 10-14 September, 2007).

    [ii] ibid.

    [iii] Wendy Miles and Duncan Speller, ‘Security for costs in international arbitration- emerging consensus or continuing difference?’ (The European Arbitration Review, 2007) <https://www.wilmerhale.com/-/media/e50de48e389d4f61b47e13f326e9c954.pdf > accessed 17 June 2025.

    [iv] Sumeet Kachwaha, ‘Interim Relief – Comments on the UNCITRAL Amendments and the Indian Perspective’ (2013) 3 YB on Int’l Arb 155 <https://heinonline-org.rgnul.remotexs.in/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ybinar3&i=163> accessed 5 June 2025.  

  • Addressing the Silence: Security for Costs in India’s Arbitration Landscape (Part I)

    Addressing the Silence: Security for Costs in India’s Arbitration Landscape (Part I)

    BY PRANAV GUPTA AND AASHI SHARMA, SECOND- YEAR STUDENT AT RGNUL, PUNJAB

    Introduction

    The recent cases of Lava International Ltd. and Tomorrow Sales Agency have reignited the confusions regarding the concept of Security for Costs (‘SfC’) in India.Gary B. Born[i] defines SfC as “an interim measure designed to protect a respondent against the risk of non-payment of a future costs award, particularly where there is reason to doubt the claimant’s ability or willingness to comply with such an award.”

    The authors in this manuscript shall wade through the confusions raised in the above cases. For that, firstly, we try to conceptually understand the concept of SfC by distinguishing it from the other situated similar concepts, while also emphasizing on the legal provisions governing them. Secondly, we analyze the concept of SfC in light of the leading international investment and commercial arbitration practices. Lastly, the authors propose a two-tier solution to the problem of SfC in India building on the international practices with certain domestic modifications.

    Security for Costs: Concept and Law
    1. Understanding Security for Costs:

    The concept of SfC is fundamentally different from that of ‘securing the amount in dispute’, as the latter is a measure to ensure the enforceability of the arbitral award by securing the party with whole or some part of the amount claimed or granted. section 9(1)(ii)(b) and section 17(1)(ii)(b) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘The Arbitration Act’) regulates the regime for ‘securing the amount in dispute’ as an interim measure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arcelor Mittal and Nimbus Communications clarified that section 9 permits securing the ‘amount in dispute’ on a case by case basis. Further, SfC is also distinct from ‘Recovery of Costs’, as ‘costs’ are recovered post the declaration of award and is addressed by section 31A of The Arbitration Act. 

    B. Security for Costs and Section 9: A Legal Void:

    While, The Arbitration Act deals with the similarly situated aspects of SfC as shown above, it remains silent on a provision for SfC, a gap that remains unaddressed even by the 2015 Amendment and The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024. A landmark ruling with respect to SfC was delivered in the J.S. Ocean Liner case, by ordering to deposit USD 47,952 as an amount for recovery of legal costs. The court relied on section 12(6) of the English Arbitration Act 1950, akin to section 9(1)(ii)(b) of The Arbitration Act, to award SfC as an interim measure in this case. However, this harmonious interpretation was later rejected in the cases of Intertoll Co. and Thar Camps, by observing that under sub-clause (b) of section 9(1)(ii), only ‘amount in dispute’ can be secured and not the SfC. Hence, The Arbitration Act needs a reform with respect to the provision concerning SfC.

    International Precedents concerning Security for Costs
    1. Investment Arbitration Insights:

    The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (‘ICSID’) Tribunal (‘The Tribunal’), being the world’s primary institution, administers the majority of all the international investment cases. Till the 2022 Amendment to The ICSID Arbitration Rules (‘ICSID Rules’), even ICSID Rules were silent on this concept of SfC, however now Rule 53 of the same Rules contains the express provision for awarding SfC by The Tribunal. As the newly introduced Rule 53 is in its nascent stage with no extensive judicial precedents[ii] on it yet, the authors analyze the cases prior to the 2022 Amendment to understand the mechanism for granting SfC.

    Prior to the 2022 Amendment, SfC was granted as a provisional measure[iii] under Article 47 of The ICSID Convention and Rule 39 of The ICSID Rules as observed in the cases of RSM v. Grenada[iv] and Riverside Coffee.[v] However, in the Ipek[vi] case, the Tribunal permitted the granting of SfC only in ‘exceptional circumstances’.[vii] The high threshold[viii] was reaffirmed in Eskosol v. Italy[ix], where even the bankruptcy didn’t sustain an order for SfC. Further, in EuroGas[x] case, financial difficulty and Third-Party Funding (’TPF’) arrangement were considered as common practices, unable to meet the threshold of ‘exceptional circumstances’.

    Finally, in the RSM v. Saint Lucia[xi] case, the high threshold[xii] was met as the Claimant was ordered to pay US$ 750,000 as SfC on account of its proven history of non-compliance along with the financial constraints, and TPF involvement. In the same case, The Tribunal established a three-prong test[xiii] for awarding SfC emphasizing on the principles of ‘Exceptional Circumstances, Necessity, and Urgency’,[xiv] with the same being followed in the further cases of Dirk Herzig[xv] and Garcia Armas.[xvi] Further, The Tribunal added a fourth criterion of ‘Proportionality’[xvii] to the above three-prong test in the landmark case of Kazmin v. Latvia.[xviii]

    The Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) is another prominent institution, with nearly half its cases involving Investment-State arbitrations. The PCA resorts to Article 26 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules to award SfC as seen in the Nord Stream 2 case.[xix] In Tennant Energy v. Canada[xx] and South American Silver,[xxi] the PCA applied the same test, devised in the Armas case to grant SfC.[xxii] Similar approaches have been adopted by the local tribunals, including Swiss Federal Tribunal and Lebanese Arbitration Center.[xxiii]

    [i] Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021); See also Maria Clara Ayres Hernandes, ‘Security for Costs in The ICSID System: The Schrödinger’s Cat of Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (Uppsala Universitet, 2019) <https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1321675/FULLTEXT01.pdf&gt; accessed 17 June 2025.

    [ii] International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, The First Year of Practice Under the ICSID 2022 Rules (30 June 2023).

    [iii] Lighthouse Corporation Pty Ltd and Lighthouse Corporation Ltd, IBC v. Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Respondent’s Application for Provisional Measures) (13 February 2016) para 53.

    [iv] Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Tribunal’s Decision on Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs (14 October 2010) para 5.16.

    [v] Riverside Coffee, LLC v. Republic of Nicaragua, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/16, Procedural Order No. 7 (Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs) (20 December 2023) para 63.

    [vi] Ipek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18, Procedural Order No. 7 (Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs) (14 October 2019) para 8.

    [vii] BSG Resources Limited (in administration), BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited and BSG Resources (Guinea) SÀRL v. Republic of Guinea (I),ICSID Case No. ARB/14/22, Procedural Order No. 3 (Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures) (25 November 2015) para 46.

    [viii] Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Award (6 August 2019) para 78.

    [ix] Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Procedural Order No. 3 Decision on Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures (12 April 2017) para 23.

    [x] EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/14, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Parties’ Request for Provisional Measures) (23 June 2015) para 123.

    [xi] RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10, Decision on Saint Lucia’s Request for Security for Costs (13 August 2014) para 75.

    [xii] Transglobal Green Energy, LLC and Transglobal Green Panama, S.A. v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/28, Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures Relating to Security for Costs (21 January 2016) para 7.

    [xiii] Libananco Holdings Co. Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/8, Decision on Applicant’s Request for Provisional Measures (7 May 2012) para 13.

    [xiv] BSG Resources Limited (n vii) para 21.

    [xv] Dirk Herzig as Insolvency Administrator over the Assets of Unionmatex Industrieanlagen GmbH v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/35, Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Security for Costs and the Claimant’s Request for Security for Claim (27 January 2020) para 20.

    [xvi] Domingo García Armas, Manuel García Armas, Pedro García Armas and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2016-08, Procedural Order No. 9 Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures (20 June 2018) para 27.

    [xvii] Transglobal Green Energy (n xii) para 29.

    [xviii] Eugene Kazmin v. Republic of Latvia, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/5, Procedural Order No. 6 (Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs) (13 August 2020) para 24.

    [xix] Nord Stream 2 AG v. European Union, PCA Case No. 2020-07, Procedural Order No. 11 (14 July 2023) para 91.

    [xx] Tennant Energy, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2018-54, Procedural Order No. 4 (Interim Measures) (27 February 2020) para 58.

    [xxi] South American Silver Limited v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Procedural Order No. 10 (Security for Costs) (11 January 2016) para 59.

    [xxii] Domingo García Armas (n xvi).

    [xxiii] Claimant(s) v. Respondent(s) ICC Case No. 15218 of 2008.

  • Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act : Resolving Territorial Ambiguity in Pre-litigation Mediation

    Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act : Resolving Territorial Ambiguity in Pre-litigation Mediation

    BY ARNAV ROY, THIRD YEAR STUDENT AT Nlu, DELHI
    INTRODUCTION

    The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was enacted to expedite the resolution of commercial disputes and establish India as an investor-friendly jurisdiction. Among its significant provisions is section 12A, which mandates compulsory pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes unless urgent interim relief is sought. However, section 12A presents an ambiguity regarding territorial jurisdiction, specifically whether mediation must occur within the territorial limits where the subsequent suit is filed. This paper aims firstly to explore the statutory interpretation of section 12A, secondly to discuss judicial clarifications on territorial jurisdiction with specific reference to Ganga Taro Vazirani v. Deepak Rahej, and finally to critically analyse whether substantial compliance suffices to resolve territorial ambiguities.

    UNDERSTANDING SECTION 12A OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT

    Section 12A requires plaintiffs to exhaust pre-institution mediation, except in urgent interim relief cases. The legislative intent is to promote amicable settlement, reducing judicial burden and enhancing procedural efficiency.

    However, the absence of explicit territorial jurisdiction provisions under section 12A creates ambiguity. Unlike the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which clearly defines territorial jurisdiction[i], section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act remains silent on this aspect, raising procedural uncertainties.

    MANDATORY NATURE OF PRE-LITIGATION MEDIATION

    Indian courts have reaffirmed the mandatory nature of pre-institution mediation. In Patil Automation (P) Ltd v. Rakheja Engineers, the Supreme Court categorically established the procedural mandatory character of section 12A. Likewise, in Ganga Taro Vazirani v. Deepak Raheja, the Bombay High Court emphasized the necessity for efficient dispute resolution and judicial backlog reduction, underlining the importance of pre-litigation mediation.

    CLARIFYING TERRITORIAL AMBIGUITY: GANGA TARO VAZIRANI JUDGMENT

    The Bombay High Court’s decision in Ganga Taro Vazirani v Deepak Raheja provides crucial guidance on the territorial scope of section 12A’s pre-litigation mediation requirement. In that case, a commercial suit was filed without any urgent relief, raising the question of whether mediation had to occur within the same jurisdiction as the suit. A single judge of the High Court treated section 12A as a procedural provision subject to the doctrine of substantial compliance, rather than an inflexible jurisdictional mandate.

    The court noted that when parties had already made genuine attempts to resolve their dispute, it would be “futile to compel the parties to engage in pre-institution mediation again, merely to satisfy territorial compliance. Such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose for which the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was brought into force.”  This purposive reading underscored that the objective of section 12A – expeditious settlement of disputes – should not be thwarted by rigid insistence on where the mediation is conducted.

    Substantial compliance over technicality: The High Court emphasized that conducting pre-suit mediation in good faith, even if outside the territorial limits of the court where the suit is later filed, could constitute substantial compliance with section 12A’s mandate. In other words, a bona fide mediation attempt (for example, in a different city or through a private mediator) satisfies the law’s intent, so long as the effort to settle was genuine. This approach prioritizes substantive justice over procedural form – minor deviations in the location or forum of mediation should not invalidate the proceedings, provided the core requirement (attempting amicable resolution) is met.

    Avoidance of redundancy and waiver: By privileging substantial compliance, the High Court avoided redundant procedural cycles. It would serve no purpose to force parties to re-mediate in the court’s locale if they had already mediated elsewhere with no success. Indeed, the judgment warned that insisting on a second mediation solely for territorial alignment would simply cause delay – an outcome contrary to the Act’s intent of swift dispute resolution2. In Ganga Taro, the plaintiff’s initiation of mediation (albeit not in the suit forum) combined with the defendant’s stance meant the court was satisfied that the spirit of section 12A had been honored. This pragmatic stance ensured that procedural rules serve as a means to justice rather than a trap.

    COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES TO MANDATORY PRE-LITIGATION ADR AND TERRITORIAL SCOPE

    Jurisdictions worldwide have adopted varied stances on mandatory pre-filing alternative dispute resolution (ADR), with differing implications for territorial jurisdiction. A brief survey of select jurisdictions illustrates how the balance between procedural mandate and territorial constraints is struck elsewhere:

    United Kingdom: In England and Wales, there is no equivalent statutory mandate requiring mediation before a civil commercial suit. Instead, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and court practice encourage ADR through pre-action protocols and cost sanctions. The leading case of Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust established that courts cannot compel unwilling parties to mediate. Still, unreasonable refusal to even attempt mediation can result in adverse cost consequences. This policy has effectively made ADR a de facto expected step in the litigation process. Notably, because mediation in the UK remains voluntary rather than jurisdictionally required, there is no rigid territorial prescription for where it must occur. Parties are free to choose mediation forums anywhere, or even mediate online, as long as it is reasonable and accessible. Recent developments signal a cautious shift toward targeted mandatory mediation , but these initiatives define the process in a way integrated with the court’s system. In all cases, the emphasis is on the fact of engaging in settlement efforts rather than the physical location. Thus, English practice sidesteps territorial disputes by focusing on compliance in substance – if the parties have reasonably engaged with mediation or other ADR, the courts are satisfied, regardless of where or how the mediation took place. This flexible approach aligns with a broader common-law trend of encouraging mediation through incentives and case management, rather than imposing hard territorial rules.

    United States: In the U.S., the approach to pre-litigation mediation varies widely depending on the jurisdiction and subject matter. There’s no blanket federal rule requiring commercial litigants to mediate before filing a lawsuit. However, many states have their own rules mandating ADR in specific contexts. For example, Florida requires pre-suit mediation for certain disputes involving homeowners’ associations. Under Chapter 720 of the Florida Statutes, an aggrieved party must serve a “Statutory Offer to Participate in Pre-suit Mediation” and go through the process as per court rules. Skipping this step can lead to dismissal or a stay of the case.

    Because these requirements are grounded in state law, the mediation is typically localized—it must happen within the state, often with court-approved mediators. A party can’t simply mediate elsewhere or ignore the process; compliance with state-specific procedures is mandatory, much like India’s section 12A requirement for commercial suits. That said, U.S. courts sometimes show flexibility. If the parties have genuinely attempted an ADR process outlined in their contract, courts may still allow the case to proceed, even if the exact statutory steps weren’t followed.

    At the federal level, while there’s no pre-filing mediation rule, many district courts require mediation or settlement conferences after the suit is filed, usually through local rules tied to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Overall, the U.S. model is decentralized: mandatory pre-litigation mediation exists in certain pockets, usually tied to state jurisdiction or specific areas of law, and when it does apply, parties must follow the local process to move forward in that state’s courts.

    Singapore: Singapore encourages mediation but does not mandate it before filing commercial suits. Instead, court rules like the Rules of Court 2021 require parties to consider ADR and report efforts to the court. Unreasonable refusal to mediate may lead to cost penalties.

    Being a single-jurisdiction city-state, mediation typically takes place locally, often through the Singapore Mediation Centre or court-linked programs. For cross-border disputes, the Singapore International Commercial Court allows cases to pause for mediation under the Litigation Mediation Litigation protocol, though this is voluntary.

    Mandatory pre-litigation mediation exists in community disputes. Under the 2015 Community Dispute Resolution Act, neighbors must mediate before filing claims, or risk dismissal and penalties. While not compulsory for commercial matters, Singapore’s legal framework supports mediation, reinforced by its adoption of the 2019 Singapore Convention on Mediation.

    Comparative Insight: Internationally, the handling of territorial jurisdiction in mandatory pre-filing mediation regimes tends to follow the underlying nature of the mandate. In jurisdictions like the UK, where mediation is encouraged but not explicitly compelled, territorial jurisdiction questions scarcely arise since parties have the freedom to mediate wherever it makes sense. By contrast, in jurisdictions with formal mandatory mediation requirements, the law usually designates or implies a forum or procedure tied to the court’s territory. The Ganga Taro principle of substantial compliance finds echoes in these systems as well, as courts internationally are inclined to excuse technical lapses if the claimant can demonstrate a sincere attempt at pre-litigation ADR. Ultimately, the comparative lesson is that mandatory pre-litigation mediation, as a growing global trend, must be implemented with an eye on practicality. This may be through flexible interpretation, as seen in India, cost-shifting incentives in the UK, or clear but reasonable procedural preconditions in the US and Singapore. Each model seeks to balance the promotion of settlement with the parties’ right of access to courts, navigating territorial concerns by either formalizing the required forum or, conversely, remaining silent on the forum to allow flexibility.

    CONCLUSION: BALANCING EFFICIENCY AND PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE

    The judgment in Ganga Taro Vazirani clarifies section 12A’s territorial ambiguity effectively. While promoting efficiency, the ruling balances procedural compliance with practical objectives.

    While section 12A requires pre-litigation mediation, judicial interpretation, notably in Ganga Taro Vazirani v. Deepak Raheja, affirms that mediation conducted outside territorial jurisdiction constitutes substantial compliance. Nevertheless, substantial compliance does not supersede explicit jurisdictional requirements under procedural laws such as the CPC. Mediation outside territorial limits is sufficient for compliance provided it does not conflict with jurisdictional rules. A purposive interpretation balancing procedural adherence with practical efficiency ensures that the legislative intent of expedient dispute resolution is maintained without undermining jurisdictional integrity.

    Requiring repeated mediation merely for territorial compliance would defeat the very purpose of the Commercial Courts Act, which aims to ensure the swift resolution of commercial disputes. As the Bombay High Court rightly observed, procedural provisions should facilitate justice rather than obstruct it.

    Therefore, if mediation has already taken place outside the jurisdiction where the action is pending, it should be deemed proper compliance with section 12A. Insisting on strict territorial compliance would only cause unnecessary delays and frustrate the objectives of the Act.

    Thus, the law must balance procedural compliance with practical efficiency. A purposive interpretation of section 12A aligns with legislative intent, ensuring that commercial disputes are resolved swiftly without being entangled in unnecessary technicalities.

    [i] Civil Procedure Code 1908, ss 15-20.

  • The Boundaries of Judicial Intervention In Arbitration: Navigating Section 34

    The Boundaries of Judicial Intervention In Arbitration: Navigating Section 34

    BY MANAV PAMNANI, THIRD-YEAR STUDENT AT NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW, HYDERABAD

    Introduction

    Recently, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court (‘SC’) in the case Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (‘Gayatri Case’) decided to refer the matter regarding court modification of arbitral awards to a Constitution Bench. This comes in light of the relatively unsettled legal position regarding the power of a court to amend or modify an arbitral award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’). Against the backdrop of multiple conflicting decisions over the course of several years, the judgement in the Gayatri case, which is yet to be pronounced, is expected to settle the position. However, there is a discernible trend that can be observed lately with the majority of court decisions holding that the court does not have this power.

    The epitome of this is the landmark judgement delivered in National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem (‘Hakeem Case’), wherein the SC declared that the court under section 34 has no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award as doing so, will amount to crossing the line (Lakshman Rekha) under the guise of judicial interpretation of statutes. 

    One of the most recent SC decisions that upheld the several precedents mentioned was delivered on 4th January 2024 in the case of S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka. The SC, in this case, held that any attempt to modify or amend an arbitral award while adjudicating section 34 and section 37 petitions is not permissible. A modification can be effected only by the SC in the interests of justice under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, provided such a modification is in tandem with relevant statutory laws.

    The power under section 34 of the Act extends only to the setting aside of an award under the grounds specified in sub-section (2), which include incapacity of the parties, invalid arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, decisions beyond the scope of arbitration, improper tribunal composition or procedure, or if the Court finds the subject matter non-arbitrable or the award in conflict with India’s public policy. With the intention of analysing the intricacies of section 34, this article explores the rationale behind the restriction on court modification, its implications, and potential solutions to address the inherent challenges.

    The Rationale Behind the Restriction on Court Modification

    The most plausible rationale is the express exclusion of such a power from the purview of section 34 of the Act. This power was explicitly included under section 15 and section 16 of the erstwhile Arbitration Act of 1940 but has been omitted under the current statute. As explained in  Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, this reflects the intention of the Legislature to amend the law pertaining to modification. Adopting a contrary approach would undermine the very purpose of excluding this power, making such an interpretation unsound. An analysis of the law in other jurisdictions like England, Singapore, Australia, and the United States reveals that such power has expressly been conferred under the respective statutes, which is not the case in India. Moreover, the purpose of Section 34 is to set aside awards on the basis of procedural or jurisdictional issues, whereas modification involves re-evaluating the substantive merits of the tribunal’s decisions, which deviates from the provision’s principal intention. This reasoning was given in the Hakeem Case mentioned previously, wherein the SC held that section 34 is not like an appellate provision. Considering it to be so is fallacious since it will violate section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, which deals with revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that since the right to get the award set aside is itself very truncated, the enforcement of such a right should also be very limited in nature. The SC further observed that section 34 of the Act aligns with the UNCITRAL Model Law,  which confers no modification power to a court hearing a challenge to an award, as well as the legislative policy of minimal judicial interference in arbitral awards.

    A deeper substantive analysis of arbitration’s fundamental tenets also results in the same conclusion. Firstly, arbitration aims to provide a speedy and cost-efficient resolution to disputes, and allowing courts to modify awards would undermine this objective by leading to protracted litigation involving high costs akin to traditional court proceedings. The grant of such a power would also vitiate the core principle of party autonomy,  by allowing external interference in the parties’ agreed-upon process of resolving disputes through chosen arbitrators, thus potentially undermining their autonomy to determine the terms and conditions of the resolution process.

    Additionally, it would be against the interests of efficiency and specialisation to give this power to courts since arbitrators are often chosen for their specific subject matter expertise, and judicial modification could devalue this specialised knowledge, as judges may lack the same expertise level in the given subject matter. Lastly, on a practical level, limiting court intervention to setting aside awards rather than modifying them, helps conserve judicial resources and reduces the burden on the court system. 

    Implications

    The restriction on this power ensures the finality and certainty of arbitral awards, promoting confidence in arbitration as a preferred dispute resolution method. Parties can rely on the arbitral process knowing that awards, once issued, are less susceptible to judicial interference beyond specified grounds for setting aside, which can also be cured by the Tribunal itself under section 34(4) of the Act, thus reinforcing the pro-arbitration approach. This stability enhances the enforceability of arbitral awards, both domestically and internationally, which is crucial for businesses operating in a globalised economy. 

    However, the restriction also presents challenges, particularly in cases where an award contains minor errors or miscalculations that do not warrant setting aside the entire award but still require correction for fairness. Parties may feel aggrieved if they cannot seek judicial correction of such errors, potentially leading to dissatisfaction and increased challenges to awards. Although they have the right to approach the SC for modification under Article 142, this is not feasible if the modification required is not substantial. Moreover, the power under Article 142 is also restricted.

    Thus, the binary approach of either upholding or setting aside the entire award limits available remedies, potentially leaving parties with incorrect or unfair outcomes. This may compel them to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings to rectify errors, increasing costs and delays, and undermining arbitration’s efficiency goals. Furthermore, dissatisfaction with limited recourse may lead to more appeals and litigation, increasing judicial workload and contradicting arbitration’s purpose as a swift and efficient dispute resolution method. Balancing finality with the need for fairness and efficiency remains a critical challenge in the arbitration landscape, necessitating thoughtful reforms and procedural enhancements to address these concerns effectively.

    Potential Solutions

    Legislative clarity through well-drafted guidelines should be achieved through amendments that grant courts limited powers to correct errors in awards. This would align with international practices, allowing selective corrections without compromising award finality. This is the practice in the United Kingdom wherein the power of courts to modify awards is largely restricted to limit judicial intervention and uphold fundamental principles of arbitration. Additionally, emphasising enhanced arbitration agreements can empower parties to include internal review mechanisms, such as appellate arbitration panels or expedited procedures, to address errors or ambiguities. This approach would minimise judicial intervention.

    Opting for a three-member tribunal instead of a sole arbitrator can also improve decision quality and reduce the need for modifications. Moreover, ensuring that arbitrators have relevant expertise is crucial for sound decisions. Judicial guidance should also clearly differentiate between grounds for setting aside an award and situations needing corrections, thus ensuring consistency and transparency in judicial decisions.

    An increased use of section 34(4), allowing the tribunal to make necessary modifications, can also be beneficial since it limits judicial intervention, alongside effectuating the required changes. This balancing act, along with other solutions, if effectively implemented, will contribute towards a robust arbitration framework.

    Conclusion

    The evolving jurisprudence surrounding section 34 underscores clear judicial intent to preserve the finality and autonomy of arbitral awards by restricting courts from modifying the same. The accepted position is largely clear, with numerous precedents establishing that courts do not have this power. The Gayatri Case, as mentioned in the beginning, is likely to follow this established norm.  While this approach bolsters the integrity and efficiency of arbitration, it also presents challenges that necessitate thoughtful reforms, particularly in addressing minor errors that do not justify setting aside an award. A more balanced and effective arbitration framework can be established by implementing legislative amendments, enhancing arbitration agreements, providing judicial guidance, and leveraging the tribunal’s powers under section 34(4). Such measures will ensure that arbitration remains a preferred method for dispute resolution, combining finality with fairness and efficiency, thus bringing about a balanced framework. 

  • Settlement Agreements and Section 12A Withdrawals: A Comparison with Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013

    Settlement Agreements and Section 12A Withdrawals: A Comparison with Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013

    BY ARSHIA ANN JOY AND ADITI SINGH, FOURTH-YEAR STUDENTS AT NUALS, KOCHI.

    Introduction

    A liquidation order is passed as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC“)  when the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP“) falls through, and the company cannot be revived within the stipulated timeline. However, courts, over time, have interpreted that issuing a liquidation order is not to be treated as a death sentence to the company and its operations. This is because the ultimate aim of the IBC is to facilitate the revival of the company if it is a feasible option. This further implies that the order permitting an entity’s liquidation can be reversed if the petition initiating CIRP proceedings is itself withdrawn. Section 12A was introduced in the IBC in 2018 to allow settlements between the Corporate Debtor (“CD“) and the creditors by allowing withdrawal of proceedings, with 1035 such withdrawals recorded till December 2023.

    This article explores the legality of allowing the withdrawal of proceedings after issuing the liquidation order, when a settlement agreement is reached. The authors also look at how the lack of procedural clarity surrounding the acceptance of the settlement agreement leads to difficulties in reviving the CIRP if the settlement agreement fails. Further, solutions are suggested through a comparison with section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“CA”), which facilitates arrangements aiming at debt restructuring and thereby resolving the financial crisis of the company. The authors argue that allowing the Adjudicating Authority (“AA”) to thoroughly analyse the settlement agreements while admitting section 12A applications, similar to the procedure envisaged in section 230 of CA, would be a step in the right direction in addressing the ambiguities surrounding the withdrawal of CIRP and revival of proceedings, if need be.

    Reversibility of a Liquidation Order and Withdrawal of Proceedings Post Issuance of Liquidation Order

    The parties are said to have arrived at a settlement agreement if the CD agrees to pay the creditor an agreed sum to resolve the conflict. Once a settlement agreement is reached after a liquidation order is passed, the parties can approach the AA under section 12A and withdraw the proceedings initiating CIRP. The primary intention behind introducing section 12A is to recognise post-admission settlement cases in line with statutory provisions. 

    The NCLAT, in Navaneetha Krishnan v. Central Bank of India, settled the law on reversibility of a liquidation order. It was held that even during the liquidation period, if any person satisfies the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) , and CoC accepts the said offer with a 90% voting share, such a person may apply for a withdrawal of the proceedings before the AA.

    In 2019, the NCLAT, in a similar case, emphasised the importance of allowing the promoters/shareholders to arrive at a settlement as per section 12A. In such cases, the application seeking initiation of CIRP can be withdrawn. The Supreme Court in Vallal RCK v. Siva Industries held that the wisdom of the CoC in approving a settlement plan must not be interfered with by the AA unless such a decision was wholly ‘capricious, arbitrary, irrational and de hors the provisions of the statute or the Rules.’ In this case, the CoC had failed to approve the proposed resolution plan with the requisite 66% majority. Subsequently, the Resolution Professional filed an application under section 33(1)(a) of IBC seeking liquidation of the entity pending which the promoter of the CD approached the AA with a settlement plan. The AA had, in turn, refused to approve it without giving due regard to the 90% majority decision of the CoC to go ahead with the settlement plan. 

    More recently, in 2022, the NCLT analysed the rationale put forth in Navaneetha Krishnan and Vallal RCK to conclude that even after the order of liquidation is passed, the application for withdrawal of proceedings may be allowed. In this case, the liquidator had received a settlement proposal from the promoter of the CD duly approved by the CoC with the requisite majority. 

    The NCLT Chennai Bench rightly noted:

    “Thus, it could be seen that even during the liquidation process, the parties have arrived at a settlement, then the application filed under Section 7, 9 and 10 can be withdrawn. Consequently, the CIRP and the liquidation initiated against the CD also stand withdrawn.”

    Thus, the order of liquidation already passed does not hinder the AA from passing an appropriate order of withdrawal as per section 12A if all the requisite conditions are satisfied.

    The Dilemma: Applying Section 12A Post Issuance of Liquidation Order

    Although the law seems to be settled regarding the impact of section 12A on a liquidation order, the lack of procedural clarity has led to contradictory results in the past few years. 

    In Jayashree Mohan v. Pathukasahasram Raghunathan, the NCLT laid down the limited scope available for reviving an entity undergoing liquidation. It was stated that once the liquidation process is initiated, the entity cannot come out of the process except through the two avenues, namely, by way of a scheme under section 230 of CA or by sale as a going concern. In this case, section 12A is not seen as a potential avenue which could result in the revival of the entity once liquidation is initiated.

    Similarly, the NCLT Chennai bench in Narayan Maheshwari disallowed the withdrawal application made under section 12A while the liquidation process was going on. It was emphasised that section 12A was inserted in Part II of the IBC, which deals exclusively with CIRP and not liquidation. Since no specific amendment is made in the liquidation process regulations, an application for withdrawal under section 12A cannot be allowed post-issuance of a liquidation order. It was further held that in Navaneetha Krishnan, the application under section 12A was never filed during liquidation and that the ex-promoter of the CD had filed an application under section 230 of CA for approving a scheme of compromise. In this case, the NCLT has voiced its concerns regarding allowing withdrawal of proceedings once the order of liquidation has been passed as it might potentially lead to every suspended Director/Promoters waiting till the liquidation order to enter into a settlement agreement at a ‘throw away price.’

    The above rationale of the tribunals could hamper the prospects of reviving a company through settlement, just because the order of liquidation has been initiated against it, thus defeating the purpose for which section 12A was included in the IBC. The application of section 12A to Part III of the IBC has to be specifically inculcated in the regulations to put a rest to these contradictory judgements.

    Revival of CIRP in case of Failure of Settlement Agreement

    In  the cases where withdrawal of proceedings was allowed after issuing the order of liquidation, the stakeholders had agreed on a one-time settlement (“OTS”) or a settlement agreement. In Sudip Dutta, the NCLT, while analysing a catena of decisions including Navaneetha Krishnan stated that:

    “In the instant case, no application was filed under Section 12A of IBC since there was no OTS that was acceptable to the Respondent No. 2 bank.”

    As noted above, the application for withdrawal under section 12A is considered after the issuance of the liquidation order only when the CoC approves a settlement agreement with the requisite majority. 

    However, the procedure for accepting or analysing such a settlement agreement is not specified in the statute or the relevant regulations. As seen above, the commercial wisdom of the CoC is given primacy and judicial intervention is permitted only if the decision of the CoC was wholly arbitrary or capricious. Analysing whether the decision itself was arbitrary or capricious would, in turn, require the settlement agreement to be on the record, which might not happen in most cases, especially when the statute/regulations fail to mandate the same, as was noted by the NCLAT in Krishna Garg. 

    In this case, the CD did not adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement after the CIRP proceedings were withdrawn. The NCLAT refused to revive the CIRP proceedings because the settlement agreement terms were not filed or brought on record before it. The NCLAT in SRLK Enterprises categorically stated that IBC is not a recovery proceeding where parties can repeatedly approach the AA owing to the non-repayment of debt. Proceedings can be revived only if the settlement agreement has been brought on record and has been made a part of the order of withdrawal. The AA can revive the CIRP proceedings, if the settlement agreement has a clause which provides for the revival of CIRP proceedings upon failure of setttlement agreement. The AA need not specifically grant the liberty to revive the proceedings in such cases. This would also imply that if there is no such clause allowing revival, the parties may be granted the liberty to do so specifically, by the AA. These recent orders suggest that the settlement agreement need not always become a part of the order allowing the withdrawal of proceedings, thus complicating the revival of proceedings under the IBC later when the parties fail to adhere to the settlement terms.

    Additionally, in Vallal RCK, the Supreme Court noted how the CoC has entered into many ‘deliberations’ before accepting the settlement plan, and stated that the CoC decision is not ordinarily subject to judicial scrutiny. The analysis done by the court gets confined to checking whether the CoC has done enough ‘deliberations’ before approving the settlement agreement. This seems to be in stark contrast to the procedure followed under section 230 of CA, where the AA is empowered to delve deeper into the actual contents of the proposed scheme.

    Comparison with Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013

    Even after passing the order of liquidation, if a scheme of Compromise demonstrates viability, feasibility, optimisation of the CD’s assets, and equitable consideration of creditors, the liquidator may submit an application under section 230 of the CA to the AA in a bid to revive the company. As per regulation 2B of the Liquidation Process Regulations 2016, a scheme of compromise and arrangement may be completed within 90 days post the order of liquidation. 

    Furthermore, clauses (2) to (10) of section 230 puts forth the powers of the AA in overseeing the admission of the scheme of compromise and arrangement. The AA is to be made aware of the latest financial position of the entity, the creditor’s responsibility statement, the auditor’s report on the fund requirements, the valuation report on the assets of the company, etc. Further, in SREI Equipment Finance Limited, the NCLAT observed that sections 230-232 cast an obligation on the AA to ensure that the scheme is not contrary to public policy and not prejudicial to the company’screditors and members. Greater checks and balances are put in place under section 230 of the CA while admitting a proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement even after a liquidation order is passed.

    Conclusion and Recommendations

    A similar procedural clarity on the AA’s oversight is absent when it comes to the role of the AA in a section 12A application involving a settlement agreement. Section 12A must specifically be made applicable to Part III of the IBC. Further, a time period may be mentioned in section 12A, similar to section 230 of CA, for accepting and analysing the settlement agreement once the AA has issued the order for liquidation. The regulations must also specify that the settlement agreement entered into must mandatorily be brought on record while withdrawing the proceedings so that revival of the CIRP can be made possible without much hassle if the said agreement falls through at a later stage.

  • Imposing a ‘Duty of Curiosity’ on Parties: Keeping The Parties on Their Feet

    Imposing a ‘Duty of Curiosity’ on Parties: Keeping The Parties on Their Feet

    BY SPARSH SRIVASTAVA, A FOURTH-YEAR STUDENT AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ODISHA

    Introduction

    Party Autonomy is the cornerstone of the arbitration process. It allows parties in a matter to choose inter alia the judge of their own case. Arbitration, being a quasi-judicial process, must be in accordance with the rules of natural justice. There is a settled principle – Nemo judex in causa sua or no one can adjudicate their cause. Deriving from the principle it is, therefore, necessary to ensure the neutrality of the arbitrators before their appointment. Any apprehension of bias may hamper the procedure’s fairness and dilute the essence of the arbitration.

    The neutrality of the Arbitrator cannot be compromised at any stage of the proceedings, particularly at the initial stages during the constitution of the Tribunal. In other words, the party autonomy cannot be exercised limitlessly disregarding these basic tenets of law– irrespective of whether there is a consensus between the parties in respect of the appointment. 

    The International Bar Association recently released a revised version of the IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest In International Arbitration (‘Revised Guidelines’), which is expected to be adopted by the Council soon. Chapter 7 of the Guidelines deals with the Duties of Arbitrators and the Parties. Arbitrator’s Duty of Disclosure is well-known under the Guidelines, the Revised Guidelines require the concerned parties to undertake ‘reasonable inquiries’, explicitly imposing a ‘duty of curiosity’ on them. Duty of curiosity, as the phrase suggests, may be defined as a parallel obligation of parties to conduct a due-diligence investigation regarding any potential conflict of interests or issues of impartiality or neutrality with the prospective arbitrators.  

    Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’ or ‘Arbitration Act’) provides for the appointment of an ‘independent and impartial arbitrator’. It creates an obligation on the arbitrator(s) to disclose any relationship with the parties that may create a bias or prejudice against or in favour jeopardizing the sanctity of the proceedings. This Arbitrator’s ‘duty of disclosure’ is continuous, and therefore, applies both at the time of the arbitrator’s acceptance of their appointment and also during the proceedings.          

    Notably, there is no such duty on the parties to look into any past or prospective relations before the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The author, through this article, proposes the inclusion of a ‘duty of curiosity’ on the parties under the Indian Arbitration law. 

    The International Backdrop

    In the international arbitration landscape, inaction in a case of constructive knowledge of the parties creates a form of estoppel, as introduced in the Revised Guidelines, and can be considered as a waiver of the right to challenge the appointment of the arbitrator. Thus, the parties need to be on their feet throughout the arbitration proceedings particularly at the time of appointment of arbitrators. Moreover, the parties challenge their own appointed arbitrator only for reasons known after the appointment.

    Recently, in a dispute between the Croatian football club and the Austrian coach, the Swiss Federal Tribunal (‘SFT’) highlighted the significance of the active participation of the parties to ensure the neutrality of the arbitrators in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest. SFT, while setting aside the award by Cout of Arbitration for Sports (‘CAS’), held that the International Federation of Association Football (‘FIFA’) should challenge the arbitrator’s appointment immediately, as his affiliation with the HNS (Hrvatski Nogometni Savez) Court of Arbitration was easily accessible. 

    Thus, in other words, the arbitrators have no obligation to disclose well-known facts or published information. The burden of proof lies on the parties that challenge the neutrality of the arbitrator to show they fulfilled their duty of curiosity and had no reasons to believe otherwise at the time of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. 

    Lately, the International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal rendered its decision in the Vitadel case on an application to set aside an international arbitral award holding parties’ inaction or failure to look at easily available information could not be a reason to set aside the award. Under French law, an arbitrator must disclose any circumstances that could, in the eyes of the parties, give rise to a reasonable doubt regarding their independence or impartiality. However, the duty of arbitrators is not absolute and is shared by the parties’ duty of curiosity.

    In WADA v. Sun Yanf, CAS clarified that the duty of Curiosity is limited as it would otherwise convert to be a liability for the parties. This duty shall not be unlimited; as parties are not expected to conduct exhaustive investigations but are required to exercise a reasonable level of diligence.

    Analysing the Status Quo in India

    Both Arbitrators and Parties have a duty of disclosure under the Arbitration Act. This duty is not restricted to the appointment but extends till the entire proceedings conclude. The Fifth Schedule of the 1996 Act categorically provides for the grounds that might raise doubts as to the impartiality or independence of the arbitrators. The contents therein incorporate the Red and Orange Lists of the IBA Guidelines, which can be grounds to set aside the arbitral award as well. The Law Commission has also suggested incorporating the IBA Guidelines to ensure the neutrality of the arbitrators.

    Notably, the benchmark under the Indian law is not ‘existence of bias’ but rather ‘justifiable apprehension of bias’. The Supreme Court has not set the bar too high, which means that the parties need not assess or prove the existence of clear bias. Rather, it ought to determine whether the circumstances in question give rise to any justifiable apprehensions of bias that may affect the neutrality of the arbitrator. 

    Section 12(1) of the 1996 Act allows the parties to challenge the appointment ‘only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made.’ It provides the knowledge of the parties at the time of the appointment.  There is a duty of disclosure. However, a duty of curiosity is not imbibed in the provision, or in other words, there is no parallel duty of caution on the parties.  

    The duty of curiosity can be seen as an extension of the principles imbibed in the 1996 Act, requiring parties to actively engage in the arbitration process and fulfill their obligations to ensure a fair and effective outcome.

    It prevents any obstruction to the arbitral proceeding and enforcement of the arbitral award. As once the party did not actively participate and fulfill its obligation it may be considered as an acceptance of the same. Such implied acceptance may create an estoppel on the parties.

    Conclusion

    The duty of curiosity of parties in arbitration can be seen as the obligation of parties to actively seek out relevant information that could possibly impact the arbitration proceedings. Neutrality, i.e. independence and impartiality of the arbitrations is a crucial aspect of arbitration. With the adoption of the Revised Guidelines, international arbitrations would witness a paradigm shift, and the challenge of arbitration would be more difficult.

    Arbitrators’ duty of disclosure is well recognised under the Arbitration Act. There should be a parallel duty on the parties. It would ensure transparency, fairness, and integrity in the arbitration proceedings. It is well established equitable principle: “One who comes to seek justice must come with clean hands”. Thus, it is never one sided and the parties also must have certain obligations to comply with.

    Duty of curiosity is not to be unlimited but can be said to be a minimal level of due diligence that can be expected from the parties. It may be detrimental to the interest of parties to have blind belief and trust as in cases of Courts of Law, where the Judges decide. With rights come responsibilities: arbitration allows autonomy but also requires active participation.

    It though difficult to bring such changes in the 1996 Act, it is upon the court to recognize this principle of ‘duty of curiosity’ to solidify their pro-arbitration stance. The Courts’ approach should be pragmatic if the party with simple due diligence, especially in the present digital world, could have known the alleged fact, the benefit of the doubt should be in favor of the arbitrators.

  • From Bias to Balance: Informed Consent in AI Arbitration

    From Bias to Balance: Informed Consent in AI Arbitration

    BY A.S. VAMSI KRISHNA AND SWAGAT AHUJA, THIRD-YEAR STUDENTS AT RGNUL, PUNJAB

    Introduction

    Recently, there has been a surge of interest in the notion of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) based platforms taking over the role of an arbitrator. This interest stems from their potential to provide a swift and cost-effective alternative to the traditional arbitration process, particularly in light of the fact that over 31 million disputes are currently pending before Indian courts. However, legal and ethical concerns have been raised regarding the use of AI-arbitrators due to their susceptibility to incorporating biases stemming from racial, cultural, religious, and geographic stereotypes into their assessments. For instance, COMPAS, an AI-based risk assessment tool implemented in American judicial systems to predict the likelihood of a defendant becoming a repeat offender, was found to exhibit significant bias. The program inaccurately categorised African American offenders as high risk nearly half of the time, raising serious concerns about its fairness and reliability. These concerns are firmly supported by both the UNCITRAL and  the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, which recognise challenges against a biased arbitrator. Consequently, the question arises as to whether the inherent biases of an AI-arbitrator render it an unusable proposition, even if the parties involved consent to their usage. The answer is not so straightforward, since a blanket ban on the use of AI-arbitration would infringe upon the freedom of the parties to opt for their preferred arbitration process, even if it involves a fully-AI based arbitrator at its helm. 

    The authors argue that a balance must be found between preserving the parties’ freedom to submit their dispute to the arbitrator of their choice against the consideration of potential costs incurred should there be mass-unenforceability of AI-generated awards in courts. To achieve this balance, the authors suggest that AI-arbitration agreements should only be allowed where the parties involved fully understand the biases inherent in the AI-arbitration and provide informed consent accordingly. Further, this article delves into potential measures that could be implemented within a regulatory framework to ensure that parties are capable of providing informed consent to an AI arbitration agreement.

    The Need for Informed Consent

    In the context of AI-arbitration, informed consent must be understood to be fulfilled when the concerned parties have access to sufficient and accurate information regarding the AI’s inherent biases and predisposition prior to entering into the agreement. The need for informed consent is countered by some, who argue that the higher threshold of consent in selecting an AI-arbitrator imposes an unnecessary burden, especially when compared to their human counterparts who, despite sharing susceptibility to inherent biases, are exempt from such requirements. In response, the authors contend that equating AI-arbitrators with their human counterparts would be misguided, since the manner of the manifestation of their biases and the scale of their operations are not comparable. AI in general is in its nascent phase and as such, the methods of investigating inherent biases it may possess are complicated and time-taking. Expecting both parties to be sufficiently knowledgeable on the basis of their own investigations is a big ask and would often lead to challenges at the time of enforcement. This is certainly true in the cases of consumer facing contracts where an AI-arbitrator is employed by banks, large constructors and other large-scale operators, where the opposing party often consists of individuals who lack sufficient resources to investigate the AI-arbitrator thoroughly. Additionally, an AI-arbitrator differs from humans in that the multitude of cases it can resolve is much greater than a single human. This means that any bias challenged by a party in one case would lead to a domino effect, toppling every case it has previously dealt with on the basis of a single challenge. In light of these factors, the element of informed consent is a vital consideration with respect to AI-based arbitration.

    Integrating Informed Consent into AI-Arbitration Platforms

    To ensure that the parties involved are capable of providing informed consent, the regulatory framework must be such that the potential AI-arbitration platforms are examined thoroughly and any inherent predispositions undertaken by the AI is disclosed. However, as previously discussed, the complexity of investigating such AIs means that the regulation in place cannot evolve an independent statutory body which evaluates each AI and certifies it as this would increase the cost and resources of the state. Thus, the authors propose that the potential AI arbitrator should be made open-source, meaning the model whether a language learning model or otherwise on which the AI operates should be publicly accessible to ensure transparency. An open-source AI offers significant benefits, as complete access to its inner workings allows experts worldwide to examine it and identify potential loopholes, emulating a peer-review process of the code. This approach has proven effective, evidenced by the case of ChatGPT, an open-source AI. It was discovered to have inherent biases in favour of a more liberal stance, revealed only by the efforts of a group of experts who carefully examined the code. An open-source AI is preferable to a confidential program since it would reduce arbitration costs for the parties by mitigating the need for private investigations of the code in each case. Additionally, it would be more efficient for the arbitration platform, which would otherwise need to protect the secrecy of its code through rigorous Non-Disclosure Agreements and other tedious privacy measures before permitting parties access for investigation. Therefore, an open-source approach is a win-win situation for the parties involved and the arbitration platform. It ensures transparency regarding any inherent biases or errors within the AI and eliminates the need for parties to conduct an ex-ante investigation for each case.

    Furthermore, an additional element to informed consent is to ensure that the variant of the AI which both parties have tested and agreed is the AI which actually acts as the arbitrator. This factor is relevant in light of the capability of AI to be altered post-agreement due to new updates. For example, if both parties provide consent to appoint an AI variant developed in 2024 as their arbitrator, any subsequent updates to this variant could potentially alter the AI’s assessment of the case. This would create the possibility of challenges during enforcement. Thus, to prevent enforcement errors, AI-arbitration agreements must specify the variant which they choose to act as arbitrator and the AI-arbitration platform must possess the capability to assess disputes as per their previous variants as well. Alternatively, the parties can reach an agreement to consent to the use of the specific AI along with the updates therein to ensure that no claim regarding lack of informed consent leads to challenges during enforcement.

    Conclusion

    AI-based arbitration promises low-cost, expedited dispute resolution, a prospect that is so enticing that it has drawn investments to bring the idea to reality. While parties have the right to opt for AI arbitration as their preferred process, ensuring fairness and equitability is necessary to ensure that the awards so produced are not vulnerable to challenge in courts. It is in the interest of future AI-arbitration platforms to provide parties with the ability to give informed consent to ensure successful enforcement of awards. 

    Further, regulators face a daunting task since they always have to catch-up with the lightning-fast development of AI. Falling behind is not an option, since a defect in the AI-program could impact not just one, but potentially all the awards it has produced. The authors suggest a pre-authorisation process for AI-arbitration platforms, mandating open and peer-reviewed programs to uncover potential biases. This is since AI’s complex nature means that understanding and revealing its potential biases can only be done by a small group of experts and so cannot be expected to be understood by all potential users. Peer review allows for a breakdown of complex information into simple intelligible data that can be understood by the parties before agreeing. Should there be no regulation, the state risks having its people consent to arrangements for which it is not moral to hold them accountable since they are unable to give informed consent. Hence, it is a justified regulatory filter to require AIs to pass certain tests before being released into the market.

  • SECTION 29-A OF ARBITRATION ACT: THE EXIGENCY OF LEGISLATIVE PRESCRIPTION.

    SECTION 29-A OF ARBITRATION ACT: THE EXIGENCY OF LEGISLATIVE PRESCRIPTION.

    BY DIGVIJAY KHATAI AND ZOYA FARAH HUSSAIN, THIRD-YEAR STUDENTS AT

    NLU ODISHA

    Introduction

    Section 29-A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is currently under scrutiny in India due to its perceived impact on the efficiency and expediency of arbitration proceedings. This provision mandates the completion of arbitral proceedings within twelve months from the date of the arbitrator’s appointment, with an extension of six months by the consent of the parties. Non-adherence to this timeline leads to the cancellation of the arbitrator’s mandate. The issue of allowing extension after the expiry of the mandate arose recently in the Rohan Builders  case which awaits a final decision in the Supreme Court.  In that light, the first section analyzes the uncertainty regarding the contribution of the parties in seeking an extension of the mandate after its expiry. Beyond that, we expound on the dichotomous judicial stance on the said matter and its implications. Finally, we culminate our opinion to understand the need for a statutory prescription on this issue. 

    Comprehending the Conundrum

    In acknowledgment of the need for a fine balance between the two pillars of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which are party autonomy and time-bound resolution of disputes, the 2015 amendment inserted Section 29-A to the act wherein sub-section (1) limits the time period for the arbitral tribunal to announce the arbitral award within twelve months from the ‘date of completion of pleadings for claims and defences’, which has to be concluded within six months from the date the arbitrator(s) received the notice of appointment as per sub-section 23(4) of the Act. Further the same can be extended, with the consent of the parties for a period not extending six months under sub-section 29-A (3).  

    However, under sub-section 29-A (4), in case the arbitral tribunal fails to announce the award either within the timeline under sub-section (1) or within the extended timeline sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator shall expire, upon completion of such time-period, unless the court extends the same either prior or after the expiry. Sub-section (5) further mandates that such an extension by the court shall be on the ground of a ‘sufficient cause’ that must be proved by the party making the application under sub-section (4).  These provisions enshrine the essence of time-bound efficiency in the statute limiting the period of resolution within twenty-four months from the date of notice of appointment to arbitrators. 

    The legislation explicitly addresses the authority of courts to extend the arbitrator’s mandate, both preceding and following its expiration. However, it remains silent on the specific timing for parties involved in the proceedings to submit an extension request. Hence, the central legal quandary arising from this ambiguity is whether parties must adhere strictly to applying under sub-section 29-A (4) before the arbitrator’s mandate expires, or if they retain the autonomy to do so even after its expiration. 

    Judicial Dichotomy

    The scope of section 29A has been analysed in a catena of judgments. In Rohan Builders case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court examined the extension of the arbitrator’s mandate through the interpretation of the word “suspended” in the 176th Law Commission Report concerning section 29A (1). The learned Single Judge referred to this report which proposed using the term “suspension of arbitral proceedings” instead of “terminate” when suggesting the implementation of time limits for concluding arbitration proceedings. However, the statute uses the word “terminate” in recognition of the need for efficacy in arbitration proceedings. This choice implies that once the prescribed timelines expire without extension requests from either party, the tribunal’s authority would cease definitively rather than remain suspended. 

    Relying on the aforesaid judgement, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Vrindavan Advisory Services L.L.P. v. Deep Shambhulal Bhanushali rejected an extension application filed after the specified period under section 29A. Notably, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered a stay of the Calcutta High Court’s verdict (given vide order dated November 06, 2023) after an SLP was filed against Vrindavan Advisory. 

    In a sharp turn of opinions, the Delhi High Court in ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd case, ruled that an application under section 29A (4) can be filed after the expiry of the mandate of the arbitrator. It reasoned that since the section has empowered the court to extend the arbitrator’s mandate either ‘prior’ or ‘after’ the expiry of the same, it saw no reason why an application of extension ‘after’ the expiry shall not be entertained. The rationale behind such a stance was justified by the expeditious approach of the arbitrator backed by the consent of the parties for the said extension. These were reasons enough for allowance of the extension application rather than rejecting it merely for filing the same after the expiry of the mandate.  

    The expeditious conduct of the arbitrators was again a crucial ground for the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Wadia Techno-Engineering Services Ltd. v. Director General of Married Accommodation Project to grant an extension of arbitrator’s mandate despite the parties applying for the same after the expiry of the mandate. 

    Upholding the approach laid down by ATC Telecom (Supra), the Bombay High Court in Nikhil H. Malkhan case, has reasoned that since the courts are empowered under section 29-A (4) to grant an extension after the expiry of the mandate, such power conferred cannot be negated solely by the virtue of parties making application ‘after’ the expiry. 

    Legislative Prescription: A Need

    The approach opted by ATC Telecom, Wadia Techno-Engineering and Nikhil H. Malkhan adopts a logical viewpoint as opposed to a stricter and a more literal approach of the statute solely focusing on the efficiency of proceedings, taken by Rohan Builders. The former not only seeks to accurately construe the legislative intent of section 29-A (4), but it also intends to preserve the element of party autonomy which stands on an equally significant pedestal. While it shall be interesting to see how the Supreme Court balances both the aspects in the SLP filed against the Rohan Builder (Supra), we need to be cognizant of a potential loophole that shall entail at the event of allowance of the parties to apply for extension after expiry of the arbitrator’s mandate. 

    Notably, none of the rulings that advocate acceptance of applications after the expiry of the mandate, prescribe a specific time limit after the said expiry within which such an application must be made. In the absence of such an additional time limit, parties will have a free pass to apply for the extension after any unreasonable delay. For example, recently in Glencore India Pvt Ltd v. Amma Lines Limited case, the Bombay HC laid down that as per the current legal framework and given an expeditious conduct on behalf of the arbitrator, the arbitrator’s mandate may continue to be valid despite an ‘unreasonable delay of 6 months’ attributable to parties applying for extension of the mandate.     

     The direction to apply ‘before’ the expiry of the arbitrator’s mandate in Rohan Builders (Supra) contributes a sense of certainty to the ambiguous maze of specific time limits which the other cases are devoid of, creating an enriched ground for violation of the statute to conclude arbitral proceedings within twenty-four months. The entire scheme of discussions highlights the pernicious implications of enforcing the ATC Telcom approach coupled with an absence of a further statutory time limit, on the efficiency of arbitral proceedings.  

    The creases of the conundrum can be ironed out if a legislative endeavour is sought to be made to not only lay down conditions for extending the mandate under section 29-A(4), which includes expeditious conduct of arbitrator coupled with consent of parties; but also prescribe a specific time limit of say fifteen or thirty days within which an application for extending arbitrator’s mandate is to be mandatorily made. 

    Conclusion

    The slew of judgements paints conflicting pictures on the issue of extension of the arbitration mandate. While the decision in the SLP pending in the Rohan Builders case would be fascinating to observe, the approach to allow the extension of the mandate after the expiry of the timeline taken by another set of judgments does not come as a panacea either. The approach does entail some lacuna like the ‘absence of a specific period’ to adhere to while applying for an extension of the arbitrator’s mandate, after the expiry affects the time-bound efficacy of the legislation. In response to this a need for a statutory prescription of a certain timeline for requesting an extension after the expiry of the mandate has been proposed which could give certainty in such a scenario where the opinions of the courts are divided and act as an uncontested thumb rule to guide further decisions. 

    In conclusion, a balanced outlook to encapsulate the essence of both the pillars of the statute would ensure that both the judiciary and the legislature, in pursuit of endeavouring in the said matter would be guided by the original intent of the legislators. 

  • Post Cox and Kings: Delhi High Court Exempts Directors From Group Of Companies Doctrine- Implications And Analysis

    Post Cox and Kings: Delhi High Court Exempts Directors From Group Of Companies Doctrine- Implications And Analysis

    By Shivang Monga and Varun Pathak, Third-Year Students at MNLU, Mumbai

    I. Introduction 

    The Delhi High Court(‘DHC’)on 24 January 2024, in the case of Vingro Developers Pvt Ltd v Nitya Shree Developers(‘Vingro Developers’), delivered an important ruling on the aspect of impleading directors of a company to the arbitration agreement. The court, in this case, excluded directors from the ambit of the group of companies’ doctrine, which the Supreme Court(‘SC’) upheld in the case of Cox and Kings Limited vSAP India Private Limited(‘Cox and Kings’).

    According to this doctrine, an arbitration agreement entered into by one company binds non-signatory group entities under certain circumstances. This doctrine applies only when the circumstances demonstrate the mutual intention of the parties to include both signatories and non-signatories. Consequently, the non-signatory gets impleaded despite not formally consenting to it.

    The DHC judgement brings certain clarity to the doctrine by excluding directors from being impleaded. The exclusion in this case stems from the application of the principal-agent relationship.

    This article seeks to analyse the high court’s verdict in the context of the Cox and Kings judgement, and sheds light on why ‘group of companies’ doctrine should not apply to such scenarios. Furthermore, we broaden our analysis by examining how different international jurisdictions have addressed issues of binding directors and employees within a company to the arbitration agreement.

    II. Binding Directors to Arbitration: Applicability of Cox and Kings

    The Respondent in the above case signed two Builder Buyer Agreements with the Petitioner concerning the Rajasthani Resident Township Project of the Respondent. The Respondent company’s directors were authorised representatives. Director 1 had signed the BuilderBuyer Agreements on the Respondent’s behalf, while Director 2 was a non-signatory. Pursuant to the non-delivery of the possession of flats, the Petitioner invoked arbitration against the Respondent.

    The Petitioner also sought to enforce the arbitration agreement against the company’s directors by invoking the Cox and Kings judgment. It was argued that in light of the said judgement, non-signatories could be impleaded and that the directors cannot be separated from the company. Petitioner argued that as per the said judgement, a joint reading of section 2(1)(h) and section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would mean that ‘parties’ included signatories and non-signatories. The contention was that one director (signatory) and other director (non-signatory) were not ‘third parties’, but rather ‘non-signatories.’

    However, the DHC underscored that the application of the ‘group of companies’ doctrine, as per the Cox and Kings judgment, hinges upon the common intention of the parties to bind non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. To accurately ascertain this intention, the court emphasized the need to consider the relationship between the parties and the surrounding circumstances.

    In light of the fact that the arbitration agreement was not signed by Respondent 2 in personal capacity but only in representative capacity and the fact that Respondent 3 was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, the court held there was no intention to bind the directors to the arbitration agreement.The High Court therefore, did not apply the group of companies’ doctrine and allowed arbitration proceedings only against the company and not its directors.

    III.Authors’ Analysis: Deciphering the Common Intention and Corporate Separateness

    In Dow Chemical v. Isover Saint Gobain, the ICC tribunal emphasized that non-signatories could be made a party to arbitration agreement based on the mutual intent of the signatory and the non-signatories. Similarly, in Cox and Kings, the Supreme Court clarified that the group of companies’ doctrine applies only when there is clear corporate separateness among the entities within the group. 

    Applying these principles to such cases, it becomes evident that the directors cannot be bound by the arbitration agreement for two key reasons. Firstly, due to the absence of corporate separateness between the director and the company. Secondly, the crucial element of common intention necessary for enforcing the arbitration agreement is lacking. 

    To establish corporate separateness, there needs to be the involvement of two separate entities, such as a holding company and its subsidiary, each with its own legal identity. However, in such a case, the director’s role as an agent of the company cannot fall within that definition. Consequently, with only one corporate entity at play and the director acting on its behalf to execute the arbitration agreement, the prerequisite of common intention also remains unfulfilled.

    Due to the absence of corporate separateness between a director and the company, the lines between the intentions of the individual director and those of the company becomes blurred. Directors, as agents of the company, are generally seen as integral parts of the company rather than distinct entities. When a director signs an arbitration agreement, it’s typically assumed as an action on behalf of the company, with the intention assumed to be that of the company. Without clear corporate separateness, it becomes difficult to ascertain the intentions of the director and of the company as a whole. This lack of distinction makes it challenging to establish the necessary common intention required for enforcing arbitration agreements. The enforcement of arbitration agreements involving directors also becomes uncertain, as it remains unclear whether the director’s actions truly represent the collective intention of the company or if they’re acting in their personal capacity.

    Therefore, DHC noted in the absence of corporate separateness and common intention the directors cannot be bound by the arbitration agreement in the present circumstances as they were also not acting in their personal capacity.

    IV. Understanding Directorial Exemption: The Role of Agency Principle 

    In addition to addressing the absence of a common intention to bind directors, the court also relied on the agency principle to discern the relationship between the company and its directors. Notably, it was observed that directors acted on the company’s behalf, as specified under Section 182 of the Contract Act. Similarly, Section 230 of the Contract Act clarifies that an agent does not assume liability for principal’s actions unless the agent personally commits to such responsibility. 

    The court’s perspective for not relying on the group of companies’ doctrine in favour of the agency principle is commendable. By emphasizing the fiduciary duties and roles of directors as company agents, the court elucidates a more nuanced understanding of corporate relationships and individual responsibilities within corporate structures.

    V. International Position 

    In light of the High Court’s oversight in considering international jurisdictions, it becomes imperative to delve into global legal perspectives on this issue. International jurisdictions have a mixed view regarding binding non-signatory directors and employees of companies to arbitration agreement. In the USA, in DK Joint Venture 1 v. Weyand it was held that because of the principles of contract and agency law, non-signatory corporate officers and agents of a corporation cannot be bound by the arbitration agreement entered on behalf of the company. The court in Covington v. Aban Offshore Ltd took the same view. Once, an arbitral tribunal in Geneva also held that the arbitration clause should not extend to the directors who have acted under employment.

    Due to the lack of uniformity on this issue in the international jurisdiction, it has also been held in certain cases that employees could be subject to arbitral jurisdiction as per the arbitration agreement signed by the company. This approach is based on the principle of ‘third party beneficiary’. According to this principle, employees could be subject to arbitral jurisdiction based on arbitration agreements signed by the company when they are intended beneficiary to the contract. However, this position is different and does not hinge on the group of companies’ doctrine, as argued before the Delhi High Court.

    It has been held in the case of In re Vesta Ins. Group Inc by Supreme Court of Texas that arbitration clauses apply only to contractual signatories, and the agents or officers of corporates can only be made a party to the dispute if they are enlisted as a third party beneficiary.

    Thus, even in cases where arbitration agreements bind employees, it is not based on the group of companies’ doctrine. The argument that the arbitration agreement must bind the directors by relying on Cox and Kings judgment does not stand as the group of companies’ doctrine in the present case cannot be applied in light of non-existence of separate companies.

    Therefore, the High Court’s decision aligns with the prevailing international stance, affirming that the impleadment of non-signatories to arbitration agreements, as per the Cox and Kings judgment, is contingent upon the common intention and the existence of separate entities within a group of companies.

    VI. Conclusion and Way Forward

    The judgment in Vingro Developers brings some clarity to the application of the Group of Companies Doctrine. By excluding directors from arbitration agreements, it underscores the defined fiduciary relationship within corporate structures. This decision emphasizes the need to consider agency principles and the absence of distinct entities within a group, to ensure a nuanced understanding and application of this doctrine in India. Moving forward, a comprehensive approach is needed to ensure consistency and fairness in resolving disputes involving directors and other employees of the company to ensure trust and efficiency in corporate arbitration proceedings.