Back
Recent Rulings from and Bombay HC Tighten Test
The Indian arbitration landscape is witnessing a quiet but decisive recalibration. Over the past three months, a trio of rulings—one from the and two from the —have begun to sharpen the contours of the doctrine, a tool that allows courts to bind non-signatories to arbitration agreements. These decisions suggest that the doctrine, which emerged from the ’s landmark ruling in , is hardening into a more predictable, if narrower, rule. For legal practitioners, the message is clear: mere commercial proximity or economic interdependence will no longer suffice without a documented link.
The doctrinal starting point is well-known. In , the held that a group of agreements executed to achieve a single commercial object could bind a to an in one of them, provided the was a signatory to another agreement within the same transaction. This logic was extended in and , where interlinked agreements were treated as a single commercial arrangement. Cox and Kings then folded this line into the broader “ ” framework, which asks whether a is, in substance, a real party to the . But the left open a critical question: is an independent basis for binding a , or merely one factual indicator feeding the ?
The Draws a Line
The first of the recent rulings, , answered that question in the negative on its facts. HPCL had awarded a tender for a Tank Truck Locking System to (later ), whose tender terms barred subletting or without HPCL’s written consent. AGC subcontracted the work to BCL on a , and a clause in that subcontract prevented BCL’s project manager from communicating directly with HPCL. When disputes arose, BCL invoked the in the HPCL-AGC contract, relying on a later Settlement cum Agreement with AGC to argue it was a .
The held that a referral court retains jurisdiction to screen even after Cox and Kings —it is not a “ ” bound to relegate every such question to the arbitral tribunal. On the facts, the Court found that HPCL and BCL had been “ .” There was no between them: the ran only between AGC and BCL, and neither the contractual chain nor BCL’s conduct—copying group emails or an escrow arrangement—established even a case of intention to be bound. Applying , the Court distinguished between assignable rights and non-assignable obligations. Mere commercial or economic connection to a project, it held, cannot substitute for a showing of , , or . The High Court’s order appointing an arbitrator was set aside.
’s Wider Reading—But With a Key Distinction
Three months later, on materially different facts, the reached the opposite result using the same doctrine. In , Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the , though not a signatory to the Participation Agreement governing a T20 franchise, was nevertheless bound to arbitrate. The Court found that MCA’s dominant operational control over the league—including approval of team participation and a decisive role in termination—satisfied the . More importantly, the Participation Agreement and a later Supplementary Agreement, to which MCA was a signatory, formed a single under Ameet Lalchand Shah . This bound MCA to the in the Participation Agreement, even though the Supplementary Agreement contained no separate .
What distinguishes this case from HPCL v. BCL is not the doctrine but its inputs. MCA was a signatory to one of the linked agreements; BCL was a signatory to none in the HPCL chain. The composite-transaction route, on this reading, requires at minimum a —actual execution of some connected instrument—before conduct or commercial proximity can do further work.
A Emerges
This reading was reinforced two months later in . The upheld the refusal to implead , a group company of OCS Services. The Court held that a group relationship and support role, without a documented commitment, cannot justify joinder. could not substitute for a .
Read together, these three rulings suggest that is hardening into a rather than a discretionary factor. A must ordinarily be a signatory to some agreement within the linked set before the composite-transaction argument can bind it to an in a different agreement within that set. This is a significant shift from the more flexible that Cox and Kings appeared to endorse.
Comparative Perspectives
How do other major arbitration jurisdictions answer the same question? France, the doctrine’s home, remains its most hospitable jurisdiction, treating group conduct and mutual intention as relevant. England has gone the other way deliberately. In , the set aside an ICC award that applied the , holding that “English law treats the issue as one subject to the chosen proper law of the Agreement and that excludes the doctrine which forms no part of English law.” English courts bind non-signatories only through conventional routes— , , , or for fraud—never through a .
Singapore follows England closely. In , the refused to enforce a London-seated award against a , treating separate legal personality as inconsistent with the “single economic entity” theory. The United States takes a broader but structured approach, recognizing against non-signatories who directly benefit from the contract or whose claims are intertwined with it. The in confirmed that these domestic-law doctrines apply to international arbitration agreements under the .
What India Should Do Next
India has legitimate reasons not to adopt the English or Singaporean approach. Layered contracting in infrastructure, logistics, and franchising means strict could allow a party substantially involved in a dispute to avoid arbitration. Cox and Kings ’ willingness to look beyond the signature has commercial justification. However, these cases expose the danger of an without clear boundaries.
Two refinements would make India’s approach more consistent. First, treat the requirement—visible in Jupicos and Hind Offshore —as the general rule, not an incidental feature of those facts. The most natural interpretation of HPCL v. BCL is that mere commercial reliance upon a transaction, even if there is no written connected agreement or conduct suggesting assumption of contractual obligations, will never suffice for status. The court ought to state this clearly, rather than leaving every High Court to re-discover it for itself.
Second, borrow the American approach’s discipline of naming discrete categories rather than relying on a single open-ended “intention” inquiry. American courts ask specific questions: Was the a beneficiary of the same contract? Are its claims so interwoven with the contract that separate litigation would be artificial? Indian courts have a single global question—was there intention to create legal relations?—which is difficult to apply consistently. Structuring the test for on the basis of specific categories— , , , —would retain the flexibility of Cox and Kings while rendering the test administrable.
The three recent rulings are not contradictory; they are complementary. They tell a story of a doctrine finding its edges. For now, the route is alive, but it demands a signed ticket to board the arbitration train. Practitioners would do well to ensure their clients have one.
