{"id":332855,"date":"2024-10-11T09:00:57","date_gmt":"2024-10-11T03:30:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=332855"},"modified":"2024-10-10T18:44:35","modified_gmt":"2024-10-10T13:14:35","slug":"unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/","title":{"rendered":"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h4>\n

A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Cox & Kings Ltd.<\/span> v. SAP India (P) Ltd.<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, determining that non-signatories to an arbitration agreement can be joined as a party in arbitration proceedings by the courts and Arbitral Tribunals through the application of the doctrine of the group of companies. The substantive validity and applicability of the judgment have been extensively discussed. However, the judgment has left some procedural issues unaddressed, which are now being raised before the Arbitral Tribunals and the courts. This article aims to analyse these unaddressed procedural issues that have emerged in the wake of the decision in Cox & Kings Ltd.<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In re<\/i> cardinal energy3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

A question was raised before the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court regarding whether the Arbitral Tribunal has the power on its own to join a non-signatory entity to the arbitration proceeding without such power being expressly endowed to it by the referral court at the time of reference under Section 11<\/a>4<\/sup><\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>5<\/sup><\/a>?<\/p>\n

Before addressing the question, the Single Judge examined the context in which the Supreme Court delivered the decision in Cox & Kings<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a>. The Single Judge noted that in Cox & Kings<\/span>7<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where an application under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> was filed before a referral court with a prayer to join a non-signatory as a party to the arbitration agreement. Thus, in this background, the Supreme Court ruled that the referral court must initially determine the questions about the prima facie existence and\/or validity of an arbitration agreement and then assess whether the non-signatory is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement. If the determination of these questions is complex, then it should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal to first determine the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and then, based on the facts and applicable doctrines, decide whether to join a non-signatory as a party to an arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n

While addressing the question, the Single Judge relying on paras 171 and 172 of Cox & Kings<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a> held that the Arbitral Tribunal does have the power and authority to implead a non-signatory as a party to the arbitration agreement by applying the group of companies doctrine. Further, the Single Judge noted that merely absence of no prayer for impleading a non-signatory party in an application filed under Section 11<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, will not oust the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal from determining on merits, the applicability of the doctrine of “group of companies” to join a non-signatory as a party to the arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n

In re<\/i> ASF Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

On 4-7-2024, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of whether a separate notice invoking arbitration under Section 2110<\/sup><\/a> of the Act is required to be served by a signatory party to maintain its claims against non-signatory parties?<\/p>\n

While answering the question, the Single Judge emphasised upon the established precedent that a notice under Section 21<\/a> of the Act<\/a> is mandatory for the commencement of arbitration proceedings and raising claims thereto. However, the Single Judge held that a Section 21 notice is not needed for a non-signatory, if a party is filing the claim in form of a is counterclaim in proceedings qua which the court has already referred the matter to an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. In simple words, if a respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal seeks to implead non-signatory entity for which a reference has already been made by the Court under Section 11<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, then the respondent is not required to serve a Section 21 notice to non-signatory entity. This reasoning of the Single Judge is largely based on the complex facts of the case.<\/p>\n

In the facts of this case, Black Canyon SEZ (P) Ltd. (BCSPL) (the claimant) filed a petition under Section 11<\/a> of the Act<\/a> against Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P) Ltd. (SPCPL) (the respondent) to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement. It was clear that claims of the claimant and counterclaims of the respondent were within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. However, claims\/counterclaims regarding ASF Insignia SEZ (P) Ltd. (AISPL) and ASF Buildtech (P) Ltd. (ABPL) (the non-signatory parties to the settlement agreement), were raised by SPCPL before the Arbitral Tribunal without serving Section 21 notice to AISPL and ABPL. The Single Judge, upon a constructive interpretation of the order passed by the referral court under Section 11<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, concluded that AISPL and ABPL are part of the ASF Group (the parent company) and the reference to ASF by the Section 11 court pertains to the cohesive group of ASF companies, effectively including AISPL and ABPL. Thus, the Single Judge inter alia found no grounds to overturn decision of the Arbitral Tribunal impleading AISPL and ABPL without a Section 21 notice served upon them.11<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Interestingly, the judgment in Cox & Kings<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a> is silent on the requirements of issuing a notice invoking arbitration in terms of Section 21 to join a non-signatory as a party to the arbitration agreement. This aspect has been addressed for the first time in ASF Buildtech<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a>. However, ASF Buildtech<\/span>14<\/sup><\/a> does not answer the question that whether a non-signatory can be joined as a party in an arbitration agreement if no reference by the Court under Section 11 has been made to it? On a presumption, the reasonable answer would be that a non-signatory cannot be joined as a party to the arbitration agreement if it has not received a Section 21 notice. The presumption is based on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Alupro Building Systems (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Ozone Overseas (P) Ltd.<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a> which mandates a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21<\/a> of the Act<\/a> is to be received by the respondent in order to commence the arbitration proceeding.<\/p>\n

The judgment of Alupro Building<\/span>16<\/sup><\/a> has been reaffirmed by various Single and Division Bench of the High Courts. Thus, applying the ratio laid down in Alupro Building<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a>, Arbitral Tribunals cannot assume jurisdiction over a non-signatory entity unless a Section 21 notice has been received, even if there is a strong case for joining the non-signatory entity.<\/p>\n

Some additional uncertain issues<\/h4>\n

If there is no court reference under Section 11 for a non-signatory entity, and a party files an application during arbitration to join such non-signatory, is the Arbitral Tribunal required to issue a notice to the non-signatory to allow them to raise objections to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, or can the Tribunal, on its own, direct the non-signatory to join the arbitration without offering such an opportunity?<\/p>\n

In Cox & Kings<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court held that the Arbitral Tribunal, when determining its jurisdiction over a non-signatory, must adhere to the principles of natural justice. This includes providing the non-signatory with the opportunity to raise objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. The consequences of the Arbitral Tribunal failing to meet this requirement are yet to be fully examined by the courts. Further, this situation is complicated by the fact that the broad principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190819<\/sup><\/a> applies to arbitration. On the basis of the principles of CPC laid down under Order 1 Rule 1020<\/sup><\/a> CPC, a civil court is not necessarily obliged to offer an opportunity to the third party for raising jurisdictional objections before impleading it either as a necessary or proper party. The civil courts can directly implead a third party in a suit at any stage if it is essential for the effective adjudication.<\/p>\n

Another lingering question raised in Cardinal Energy<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a> is whether under which section of the Act, an application should be filed to join\/implead as a non-signatory entity to an arbitration agreement, and under which section of the Act, the order of the Arbitral Tribunal to join\/implead a non-signatory entity can be challenged before the Court?<\/p>\n

In Cox & Kings<\/span>22<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court clarified that the question to join\/implead a non-signatory entity to an arbitration agreement is to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 1623<\/sup><\/a> of the Act. Section 16 enshrines the principle of competence-competence in Indian arbitration law, empowering the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement as well as the issue joinder\/impleadment of non-signatory entity to the arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n

In Arupri Logistics (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Vilas Gupta<\/span>24<\/sup><\/a>, a judgment passed prior to Cox & Kings<\/span>25<\/sup><\/a>, the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that an order by the Arbitral Tribunal to join\/implead a non-signatory as a party to the arbitration agreement is akin to an order passed by it under Section 17<\/a>26<\/sup><\/a> of the Act<\/a> and is therefore appealable to the Court under Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. However, the judgment in Arupri Logistics<\/span>27<\/sup><\/a>, has been implicitly overruled by the judgment of Cox & Kings<\/span>28<\/sup><\/a>. The Single Judge in ASF Buildtech<\/span>29<\/sup><\/a> has clarified that the decision in Arupri Logistics<\/span>30<\/sup><\/a> cannot be considered because it was rendered prior to Cox & Kings<\/span>31<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, Cardinal Energy<\/span>32<\/sup><\/a>, a decision rendered after Cox & Kings<\/span>33<\/sup><\/a>, the Single Judge categorially held that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power under Section 16<\/a> of the Act<\/a> to determine whether it has jurisdiction to join\/implead non-signatory as a party to an arbitration agreement. Thus, any decision made by the Arbitral Tribunal joining or declining to join a non-signatory as a party to an arbitration agreement under Section 16<\/a> of the Act<\/a> can always be the subject-matter of a challenge in a petition filed under Section 34<\/a>34<\/sup><\/a> of the Act<\/a>, after the final award is passed.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h4>\n

The Supreme Court’s affirmation of the group of companies doctrine in Cox & Kings Ltd.<\/span>35<\/sup><\/a> marks a significant development in Indian arbitration law. However, cases like Cardinal Energy<\/span>36<\/sup><\/a> and ASF Buildtech<\/span>37<\/sup><\/a> highlight the ongoing procedural challenges that courts and Arbitral Tribunals face regarding the joinder or impleadment of non-signatories to an arbitration agreement. As we move forward, it is essential for both courts and Arbitral Tribunals to approach these issues with caution. The procedural implications of Cox & Kings<\/span>38<\/sup><\/a> will likely be further refined through future judicial interpretations, with courts playing a critical role in resolving these lingering questions and providing the clarity needed for Arbitral Tribunals to effectively address the joinder of non-signatories in arbitration agreements.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Advocate practising in New Delhi and is an Associate in the office of a former Judge of Delhi High Court. Author can be reached at: piyushjain.1218@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

2.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Cardinal Energy & Infrastructure (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Subramanya Construction & Development Co. Ltd.<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 964, paras 41 and 42.<\/a><\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.11.<\/a><\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.11.<\/a><\/p>\n

6.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

7.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

8.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1, paras 41 and 42.<\/a><\/p>\n

9.<\/a> ASF Buildtech (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Shapoorjipallonji & Co. (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4530.<\/a><\/p>\n

10.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 21.<\/a><\/p>\n

11.<\/a> ASF Buildtech (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Shapoorjipallonji & Co. (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4530, paras 86-88.<\/a><\/p>\n

12.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

13.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4530.<\/a><\/p>\n

14.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4530.<\/a><\/p>\n

15.<\/a> 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228.<\/a><\/p>\n

16.<\/a> 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228.<\/a><\/p>\n

17.<\/a> 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228.<\/a><\/p>\n

18.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

19.<\/a> Civil Procedure Code, 1908.<\/a><\/p>\n

20.<\/a> Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or.1 R.10.<\/a><\/p>\n

21.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 964.<\/a><\/p>\n

22.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

23.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.16.<\/a><\/p>\n

24.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4297.<\/a><\/p>\n

25.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

26.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.17.<\/a><\/p>\n

27.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4297.<\/a><\/p>\n

28.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

29.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4530.<\/a><\/p>\n

30.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4297.<\/a><\/p>\n

31.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

32.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 964.<\/a><\/p>\n

33.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

34.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 34.<\/a><\/p>\n

35.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n

36.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 964.<\/a><\/p>\n

37.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4530.<\/a><\/p>\n

38.<\/a> (2024) 4 SCC 1.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Piyush Jain*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":332856,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[40742,10131,2569,44986,73967,73966,51354,34169,73965],"class_list":["post-332855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-arbitral-tribunals","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-code-of-civil-procedure","tag-cox-kings","tag-emerging-procedural-complexities","tag-group-of-companies","tag-supreme-court-of-india","tag-unpacking"],"yoast_head":"\nUnpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-10-11T03:30:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Emerging-Procedural-Complexities.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/\",\"name\":\"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Emerging-Procedural-Complexities.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-10-11T03:30:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Emerging-Procedural-Complexities.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Emerging-Procedural-Complexities.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings | SCC Times","description":"A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings","og_description":"A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-10-11T03:30:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Emerging-Procedural-Complexities.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/","name":"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Emerging-Procedural-Complexities.webp","datePublished":"2024-10-11T03:30:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Emerging-Procedural-Complexities.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Emerging-Procedural-Complexities.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/11\/unpacking-the-emerging-procedural-complexities-post-the-judgment-of-cox-kings\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unpacking the Emerging Procedural Complexities Post the Judgment of Cox & Kings"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Emerging-Procedural-Complexities.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":341584,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/impleading-parties-in-arbitration-unresolved-dilemmas\/","url_meta":{"origin":332855,"position":0},"title":"Impleading Parties in Arbitration: Unresolved Dilemmas","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Simarpreet Kaur Matharoo*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Unresolved Dilemmas","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Unresolved-Dilemmas.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Unresolved-Dilemmas.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Unresolved-Dilemmas.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Unresolved-Dilemmas.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":312357,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/29\/application-for-interim-measures-by-non-signatories-to-an-arbitration-agreement-a-continuing-enigma\/","url_meta":{"origin":332855,"position":1},"title":"Application for Interim Measures by Non-Signatories to an Arbitration Agreement: A Continuing Enigma?","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Kunal Mimani\u2020 and Kartikey Bhatt\u2020\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Application for Interim Measures","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Complex-Processing-Scenarios.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Complex-Processing-Scenarios.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Complex-Processing-Scenarios.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Complex-Processing-Scenarios.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":287548,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/23\/the-group-of-companies-doctrine-in-india-antithetical-to-free-consent\/","url_meta":{"origin":332855,"position":2},"title":"The Group of Companies Doctrine in India \u2013 Antithetical to Free Consent?","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 23, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Kingshuk Banerjee\u2020 and Nidhi Kulkarni\u2020\u2020 Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 32","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Group of Companies Doctrine","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-842.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-842.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-842.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-842.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":228449,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/04\/18\/the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-should-the-high-courts-exercise-the-powers-of-superintendence-over-arbitral-tribunals\/","url_meta":{"origin":332855,"position":3},"title":"The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Should the High Courts exercise the powers of superintendence over arbitral tribunals?","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 18, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Abhinav Shrivastava* and Nirmal Prasad**","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272575,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/01\/cox-and-kings-and-the-group-of-companies-conundrum\/","url_meta":{"origin":332855,"position":4},"title":"Cox and Kings and the “Group of Companies” Conundrum","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Priyanshu Shrivastava\u2020 and Fatema Kinkhabwala\u2020\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-26-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-26-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-26-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-26-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-26-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330644,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/12\/impleading-international-non-signatories-to-domestic-arbitration-analysing-practical-implications\/","url_meta":{"origin":332855,"position":5},"title":"Impleading International Non-Signatories to a Domestic Arbitration: Analysing the Practical Implications","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 12, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Prashant Pakhiddey* and Manav Gill**","rel":"","context":"In "DSK Legal"","block_context":{"text":"DSK Legal","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/law-firm\/dsk-legal\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Impleading non-signatories to arbitration","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Impleading-non-signatories-to-arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Impleading-non-signatories-to-arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Impleading-non-signatories-to-arbitration.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Impleading-non-signatories-to-arbitration.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=332855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332855\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/332856"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=332855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=332855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=332855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}