Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hiroo Advani, Adv. Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv. Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv. Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv. Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv. Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Garima Verma, Adv. Mr. Kumar Vinayakam Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mallika Luthra, Adv. Mr. Saksham Barsaiyan, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Navdeep Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jeevan Ballav Panda, Adv. Ms. Shalini Sati Prasad, Adv. Mr. Satish Padhi, Adv. Ms. Meher Tandon, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Dhriti Mehta, Adv. Mr. Rohan Mandal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Andrew Naik, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Batra, AOR Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Farhad Sorabjee, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Nair, AOR Mr. Kumar Kislay, Adv. Mr. Pratik Pawar, Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Pradhan, Adv. Ms. Shanaya Cyrus Irani, Adv. Ms. Aishna Jain, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Mr. Anirudh Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Shiva Krishnamurti, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Rohan Dewan, Adv. Ms. Sukanya Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vishwaditya, Adv. Ms. Niti Richariya, Adv. Ms. Gauri Pasricha, Adv. Mr. Ramkishore Karnam, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Subramanian, Adv. Ms. Mahaswetha S, Adv. Mr. Varun Venkatesan, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anisha C, Adv. Mr. George Pothan Poothicote, Adv. Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashu Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Debesh Panda, AOR Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Jayesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ritik Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Adv. Mrs. Trishala Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Milind Sharma, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Ujjwal A. Rana, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Adv. M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the 'Group of Companies' doctrine is an important legal principle within Indian arbitration law, primarily grounded in the mutual intent of the parties involved (!) (!) . This doctrine facilitates the binding of non-signatory entities within a corporate group to an arbitration agreement, provided there is clear evidence of their participation in the conclusion, performance, or termination of the underlying contracts, and a mutual intention to be bound (!) (!) .

The Court clarified that the doctrine is fundamentally based on consent and mutual intent, which are to be ascertained from the conduct of the parties and the circumstances surrounding the contractual arrangements (!) (!) . It emphasizes that the legal personality of separate corporate entities within a group must be maintained, and the doctrine should not be invoked solely on the basis of ownership, control, or organizational structure (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the Court held that the application of the doctrine should be fact-specific, considering factors such as direct relationship, commonality of subject matter, composite nature of transactions, and active participation in the contractual process (!) (!) . The involvement in negotiations and performance, along with the circumstances indicating mutual intention, are critical for establishing a non-signatory's binding nature under the arbitration agreement (!) (!) .

Importantly, the Court delineated that the phrase 'claiming through or under' in the relevant statutory provisions relates to derivative rights, such as those arising from succession, assignment, or subrogation, and does not extend to binding non-signatories based solely on membership in a corporate group (!) (!) . The doctrine is thus distinct from principles like piercing the corporate veil or alter ego, which are based on equity and are not the basis for binding non-signatories in arbitration (!) (!) .

In conclusion, the Court recognized the utility of the 'Group of Companies' doctrine in complex multi-party transactions, provided that its application is grounded in the actual mutual intent of the parties, as evidenced by conduct and circumstances, rather than mere corporate structure or ownership (!) (!) . The doctrine has an independent legal existence but must be applied cautiously, ensuring that it aligns with the principles of party autonomy and consent inherent in arbitration law.

Table of Contents
(A)	The reference
(B)	Submissions
(C)	Legal background
(i)	India
(a)	Chloro Controls
(b)	Development of Law after Chloro Controls
(ii)	France - The Dow Chemicals case
(iii)	Switzerland
(iv)	England
(v)	Singapore
(vi)	United States of America
(D)	Arbitration Agreement
(i)	Consent as the basis for arbitration
(ii)	Parties to Arbitration Agreement
(E)	Group of Companies Doctrine
(i)	Separate legal personality
(ii)	Adopting a pragmatic approach to consent
(iii)	Group of companies doctrine - a fact based doctrine
(iv)	The determination of mutual intention
(v)	Threshold standard
(F)	The group of companies doctrine has independent existence
(i)	Party and Persons “claiming through or under” are different
(ii)	The approach adopted by this Court in Chloro Controls is Incorrect
(iii)	Power of the Courts to issue directions under Section 9
(G)	The st