{"id":353796,"date":"2025-07-18T13:00:42","date_gmt":"2025-07-18T07:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=353796"},"modified":"2025-07-18T13:08:58","modified_gmt":"2025-07-18T07:38:58","slug":"the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/","title":{"rendered":"The Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

The concept of \u201cconsent\u201d goes to the core of arbitration, but various jurisdictions interpret it slightly differently. Initially, \u201cconsent\u201d was only interpreted formally, that is, that it could be verbal or written. The only theory that highlighted the internal will to bind them with right and duty was \u201cthe will theory\u201d. On another note, \u201cdeclaratory theory\u201d, strong in its conviction of commerce being certain, condemned the arbitrary notion of \u201cinternal will\u201d. However, these two intermix to form \u201cpragmatic approach to consent\u201d i.e. internal will and commerce. This article examines how the concept of consent to arbitration has been shaped by the legal evolving needs and the notion of implied in group of companies (herein \u201cGoC\u201d).<\/p>\n

Written form and the roots of implied consent<\/h2>\n

In almost every jurisdiction, the first approach to finding the route to the minds of parties is a formal approach i.e. writing between parties. It can be either of two purposes: evidentiary purpose and validity purpose. In Dutch, the word used is: \u201cThe arbitration agreement is proven<\/span> by writing \u2026 provided that this instrument is expressly or impliedly accepted by or on behalf of the other party,\u201d1<\/sup><\/a> similarly, in Spain it mentions, \u201cThe arbitration agreement shall be verifiable in writing\u201d2<\/sup><\/a> further in Article 9 it mentions agreement must \u201cexpress the will of the parties\u201d; this shows the evidentiary nature of legislation. Whereas, in Swiss, it mentions, \u201cThe arbitration agreement shall be valid if made in writing or in any other manner that can be evidenced by text,\u201d3<\/sup><\/a> and in the Brazil, it mentions, \u201cAn arbitration clause will be in writing.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a> Another example is UAE, which mentions that: \u201cThe arbitration agreement shall be in writing; otherwise, it shall be null and void.\u201d5<\/sup><\/a> This shows the validity purpose of the legislation. Also, there are countries like France and Sweden, which, in fact, do not require written form.<\/p>\n

These approaches, however, show the subjective and objective understanding of \u201cconsent\u201d. For example, in countries with evidentiary value, the legislation provides for multiple methods of establishing consent, such as express or implied consent like Dutch and Spain, whereas in statutes with validity purposes, there are stricter requirements for establishing consent, such as the Swiss requiring only the \u201ctext\u201d or UAE strongly focusing of text and provide restriction based on privity and writing requirement.6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Now, the substantive question is what is the extent of implied consent under the Arbitration Act? For example, in Singapore, it is provided that an agreement is in writing when \u201crecorded in any form, whether the agreement is concluded orally, by conduct, or by any other means\u201d.7<\/sup><\/a> In contrast, the UK Act8<\/sup><\/a> clearly laid out the evidence in writing, which includes writing recorded by one party or a third party (with authorisation of the parties). There is no concept of \u201cimplied consent\u201d. Even in the Indian Arbitration Act9<\/sup><\/a>, apart from statement of claim arguments, there is no other way to prove implied consent. This raises the issue of \u201cimplied consent\u201d in the GoC. How will it be fitted into statutory provisions? There are two schools for interpretation: one consensual and another, non-consensual school. Consensus school includes contractual interpretation of implied consent, doctrines of assignment and GoC doctrine. This school lies on the presumption of \u201cless evidence requirement in arbitration agreement\u201d.10<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Another school is non-consensual, which is based on principle of justice and equality such \u201csingle economic unit\u201d and \u201csame economic reality\u201d concepts. Another principle used is the \u201cprinciple of good faith\u201d. In the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the arbitral award was set aside on the ground that non-signatories acted in a manner where it is presumed, they had consented or led others to believe they were the true party in the contract.11<\/sup><\/a> Lastly, \u201cthe doctrine of equitable estoppel\u201d and is equated as part of GoC.12<\/sup><\/a> In Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Rattan India Power Ltd.<\/span>, while connecting two, emphasise that the agent of the principle can be included in arbitration by the concept of implied consent.13<\/sup><\/a> Hence, although, the two school mentions overlaps certainly in \u201cestoppel doctrine\u201d. This article will focus on first school especially implied consent and GoC doctrine.<\/p>\n

Across borders: The uneven evolution of the GoC doctrine in arbitration<\/h2>\n

Evolution of consent in arbitration agreements, even after amendment to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)<\/span> Model, is unevenly distributed across jurisdictions. The jurisdictional difference is seen in Aloe Vera of America Inc.<\/span> v. Asianic Food (S) Pte. Ltd<\/span>.14<\/sup><\/a> where the Singapore rejected the challenge to the arbitral award based on GoC. The Court stated the State of Arizona was the proper law of arbitration, later upheld by the Court in Arizona. Another is FR 8 Singapore Pte. Ltd.<\/span> v. Albacore Maritime Inc.<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a>, where the New York District Court applied piercing the corporate veil, stating US law is more favourable as compared to England to corporate veil. However, later, it was held that US common law is not applicable to contracts because English law is the choice of law.16<\/sup><\/a> This shows how the choice of law shapes the outcome of a challenge to a group of companies\u2019 doctrine. The jurisdiction is divided into three categories: one is legislation with no writing standard, the second is those with writing as a \u201cvalidatory purpose\u201d, and the last is statutes with writing as a clear differentiation between \u201cvalidity and evidentiary purpose\u201d i.e. formalistic approach. This categorisation is important because the question is how to substantiate or evidence implied consent for the application of GoC. As in the first and second categories, implied consent can be imported, whereas in the third category, the consent is too formalistic with an evidentiary section attached.<\/p>\n

(A) The jurisdiction in the first category includes France and Sweden<\/span>: Sweden does not recognise GoC. However, implied consent can be inferred from passivity17<\/sup><\/a> and behaviour of parties.18<\/sup><\/a> France is the first country where the concept evolved. However, there is no concept of writing in arbitration agreements under the French Civil Code19<\/sup><\/a>. It is also important to note an arbitration agreement is considered a contract within the main contract with independent rights and obligations. Therefore, GoC doctrine makes an exception to privity of contract for practical reasons. The Court has even gone so far as to annul the award on the ground of GoC.20<\/sup><\/a> The uniqueness of France’s jurisdiction is that they relied on GoC, not only on the commerce argument but also on consent. One such case is KIS France<\/span> SA<\/span> v. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a>, where the Court of Appeal in Paris held that it is not merely the GoC, but parties intended by agreement based on a \u201ccontractual unity\u201d, and hence, it is an act of implied consent.<\/p>\n

(B) The second category includes the United States and Germany<\/span>: In the US, there is mere mention of \u201cwritten provision of arbitration\u201d; hence, the group of doctrines only is made applicable for efficiency and commercial benefit based on the principle of alter ego22<\/sup><\/a>, corporate veil23<\/sup><\/a>, or agency24<\/sup><\/a>. In fact, Germany does not follow GoC doctrine.25<\/sup><\/a> This category has allowed GoC doctrine but for limited purposes and based on alter ego or corporate veil. However, the interesting part is it does not import implied consent.<\/p>\n

(C) The third category includes Singapore, Switzerland, England and India<\/span>: In Singapore, considered a pro-arbitration regime, even after adopting the UNCITRAL<\/span> Model Law (as amended in 2006), consider the doctrine against the consensual nature of arbitration.26<\/sup><\/a> In the recent case of CJD<\/span> v. CJE<\/span>27<\/sup><\/a>, propounding the concept of consent in third-party intervention, it stated:<\/p>\n

Underpinning the principle of party autonomy is the fundamental principle of consent or agreement of the parties. Thus, in an area of dispute resolution where consent plays such a central role, the notion of a \u201cforced joinder\u201d of a party would appear somewhat out of place and, some might say, anathema to the very definition of consent.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, there are jurisdictions with a formalistic approach in statutes and an adopted uniform approach in GoC doctrine, except for India. Similarly, Switzerland, under Section 17628<\/sup><\/a>, provided that \u201callowing it to be evidenced by text\u201d, however, domestic arbitration has implied consent and third-party intervention mentioned in the statute. The Court usually does not extend to third parties except in assignment, debt, or interference by a party in execution.29<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, in England, there is a strict standard of writing, and they categorically rejected the GoC.30<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Curious case of \u201cimplied consent\u201d in India’s group of companies doctrine<\/h2>\n

From the abovementioned, interpretation cannot hold in a vacuum; rather, it needs to be seen with the statute. It is important to note that writing is considered as essential element for consent, as mentioned by the Supreme Court.31<\/sup><\/a> However, India imports both the concept of writing i.e. validity [Section 7(3)]32<\/sup><\/a>, and the evidentiary [Section 7(4)] purpose of writing. Hence, writing is a statutory requirement for a valid arbitration agreement against an oral agreement.33<\/sup><\/a> Further, writing need not be signed but must be documented. Out of three methods of documentation, only in Section 7(4)(c<\/span>) is the import of limited \u201cimplied consent\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Court began by asserting it as a consent-based doctrine, and to include commercial factors, it propounded the term \u201cpragmatic approach to consent\u201d. However, the Court rejected the corporate veil while explaining the pragmatic approach to commercial understanding based on legal relationships. Further, while defining the GoC, it mentioned the reasoning of complicated structures, multi-party transactions and forming groups by informal alliances, joint ventures, etc. This all shows the intention of the Court to favour substance over form and looking beyond the contract which will ultimately pave way for corporate veil or single economic entity. This is also the reason why Singapore has rejected the doctrine because of subjective observations on \u201csingle economic unity\u201d. Another example is that of Turkey whose definition is almost identical with India<\/p>\n

Secondly, the Court relied on Section 7(4)(c<\/span>). This section allows us to look into the conduct of the parties. The Court relied on S.N. Prasad<\/span> v. Monnet Finance Ltd.<\/span>34<\/sup><\/a>, the Court intermixed the validity question with the evidentiary question. Even in the mentioned case, the existence or validity of contract was challenged. The validity question is answered in Section 7(3), whereas Section 7(4) is a procedural extension of the section. As mentioned above, only the first category of countries is able to adopt consent-based GoC doctrine freely because of its legislative intent of non-writing requirement and partially by second category because of limited writing requirement. India can use validity\/formal provision to act like rejoinder provision without there any implied consent mentioned in the section. Further, cherry-picking implementation of GoC only on \u201ccontractual claims\u201d limit the power of arbitrator to decide claim.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Writing standard is often considered as dead wood in arbitration, however, GoC doctrine has raised serious concern. It needs to be noted judiciary must stick to legislature intent. The liberty to interpret comes with statute, as seen in France. The interpretation of Section 7(4)(c<\/span>) is first of its kind for extracting consent. Major jurisdictions have either rejected the doctrine or adopted the non-consensual approaches like corporate veil. India, in its attempt, to link consent with GoC doctrine has interpreted section beyond its scope without any legislative support. Indian jurisprudence risks trumping the basic premise of party autonomy by confusing evidential qualifications and nullity standards going by the provisions of Section 7.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

*BA LLB (NLU Lucknow), LLM (NLU Delhi). Author can be reached at: mohitrml22@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> Netherlands Arbitration Act, 1986, Art. 1021.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Spanish Arbitration Act, 2003, Art. 9.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Swiss Private International Law Act, 1987, Art. 178(1).<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law No. 9.307) 1996, Art. 4.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> UAE Federal Law No. (6) of 2018, Art. 7.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> \u201cArbitration Agreements and Non-Signatories: The Case of Successors\u201d (hedefpartners.com, 3-8-2023).<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> Singapore Arbitration Act, 2001, S. 4.<\/a><\/p>\n

8.<\/a> UK Arbitration Act, 1996 (GB).<\/a><\/p>\n

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

10.<\/a> Bernard Hanotiau, \u201cConsent to Arbitration: Do We Share a Common Vision?\u201d, (2011) 27(4) Arbitration International 541.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Stavros Brekoulakis, \u201cRethinking Consent in International Commercial Arbitration: A General Theory for Non-signatories\u201d, (2017) 8(4) Journal of International Dispute Settlement 610-643.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> Avila Group Inc.<\/span> v. Norma J. of California<\/span>, 1977 SCC OnLine Dis Crt US 1<\/a>; Life Techs Corpn.<\/span> v. AB Sciex Pte. Ltd.<\/span>, 2011 SCC OnLine Dis Crt US 1 ; GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS Corpn.<\/span> v. Outokumpu Stainless USA Llc2<\/span>, <\/a>2020 SCC OnLine US SC 46<\/a> : 207 L Ed 2d 1 (2020).<\/a><\/p>\n

13.<\/a> 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3688<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> 2006 SCC OnLine SGHC 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> 2010 SCC OnLine Dis Crt US 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> Similarly, held in Singapore in Peterson Farms Inc.<\/span> v. C&M Farming Ltd.<\/span>, 2004 EWHC 121 (Comm).<\/a><\/p>\n

17.<\/a> Ukraine<\/span> v. Norsk Hydra<\/span>, 2007-12-17 T 3108-06 (Swed.).<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> John Kadelburger, \u201cProfura AB v. Stig Blomgren, Court of Appeal of Western Sweden, T 2863-07, 19 March<\/p>\n

2008\u201d, A Contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters; Kluwer Law International, 1.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> French Civil Code, 1804.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> Alexander Malan, \u201cArbitration without Consent in Commercial Arbitration: What the Case Dallah v. Pakistan Tells Us About the Evolution of French Case Law in Arbitration\u201d, (2013) 28(2) Mealey\u2019s International Arbitration Report 1.<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> Serge Gravel and Particia Peterson, \u201cFrench Law and Arbitration Clauses – Distinguishing Scope from Validity on ICC Case No. 6519 Final Award\u201d, (1992) 37 McGill LJ 510.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> ARW Exploration Corpn.<\/span> v. Aguirre<\/span>, 1995 SCC OnLine US CA 10C 1.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> Smith\/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. Partnership Inc.<\/span> v. Smith Cogeneration International Inc.<\/span>, 1999 SCC OnLine US CA 2C 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> I-Link Inc.<\/span> v. Red Cube International, AG<\/span>, 2017 SCC OnLine US CA 10C 1.<\/p>\n

25.<\/a> German Federal Supreme Court (\u201cBGH\u201d), SchiedsVZ 2014, 151; Higher Regional Court Braunschweig (\u201cOLG Braunschweig\u201d), BeckRS 2014, 11052.<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> Manuchar Steel Hong Kong Ltd.<\/span> v. Star Pacific Line Pte. Ltd.<\/span>, 2014 SCC OnLine SGHC 1<\/a>; &ldquo;Engedi&rdquo<\/span>, In re<\/span>, 2010 SCC OnLine SGHC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

27.<\/a> 2021 SCC OnLine SGHC 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> Swiss Private International Law Act, 1987.<\/p>\n

29.<\/a> Stavros Brekoulakis, \u201cRethinking Consent in International Commercial Arbitration: A General Theory for Non-signatories\u201d, (2017) 8(4) Journal of International Dispute Settlement 610-643.<\/p>\n

30.<\/a> Peterson Farms Inc.<\/span> v. C&M Farming Ltd.<\/span>, 2004 EWHC 121 (Comm).<\/a><\/p>\n

31.<\/a> Cox & Kings Ltd.<\/span> v. SAP (India) (P) Ltd.<\/span>, <\/a>(2025) 1 SCC 611<\/a>, para 75<\/a>.<\/p>\n

32.<\/a> Companies Act, 2013, S. 7(3).<\/a><\/p>\n

33.<\/a> Caravel Shipping Services (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Premier Sea Foods Exim (P) Ltd.<\/span>, <\/a>(2019) 11 SCC 461<\/a>.<\/p>\n

34.<\/a> (2011) 1 SCC 320<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Mohit Mishra*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":353801,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[43926,85531,85530,85532,85534,85533,85535,61353],"class_list":["post-353796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-arbitration-act","tag-doctrine-across-jurisdictions","tag-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration","tag-goc","tag-netherlands-arbitration-act-1986","tag-spanish-arbitration-act-2003","tag-swiss-private-international-law-act-1987","tag-uncitral"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The concept of \u201cconsent\u201d goes to the core of arbitration, but various jurisdictions interpret it slightly differently. Initially, \u201cconsent\u201d\" \/>\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\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The concept of \u201cconsent\u201d goes to the core of arbitration, but various jurisdictions interpret it slightly differently. Initially, \u201cconsent\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-07-18T07:30:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-07-18T07:38:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Fallacies-of-Consent-in-Arbitration.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=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"The Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 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\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/\",\"name\":\"The Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Fallacies-of-Consent-in-Arbitration.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-18T07:30:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-07-18T07:38:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"The concept of \u201cconsent\u201d goes to the core of arbitration, but various jurisdictions interpret it slightly differently. Initially, \u201cconsent\u201d\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Fallacies-of-Consent-in-Arbitration.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Fallacies-of-Consent-in-Arbitration.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions | SCC Times","description":"The concept of \u201cconsent\u201d goes to the core of arbitration, but various jurisdictions interpret it slightly differently. Initially, \u201cconsent\u201d","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\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions","og_description":"The concept of \u201cconsent\u201d goes to the core of arbitration, but various jurisdictions interpret it slightly differently. Initially, \u201cconsent\u201d","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-07-18T07:30:42+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-07-18T07:38:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Fallacies-of-Consent-in-Arbitration.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"The Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/","name":"The Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Fallacies-of-Consent-in-Arbitration.webp","datePublished":"2025-07-18T07:30:42+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-18T07:38:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"The concept of \u201cconsent\u201d goes to the core of arbitration, but various jurisdictions interpret it slightly differently. Initially, \u201cconsent\u201d","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Fallacies-of-Consent-in-Arbitration.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Fallacies-of-Consent-in-Arbitration.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/the-fallacies-of-consent-in-arbitration-dissecting-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-across-jurisdictions\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Fallacies of Consent in Arbitration: Dissecting the Group of Companies Doctrine Across Jurisdictions"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Fallacies-of-Consent-in-Arbitration.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":293508,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/31\/tangling-the-non-signatories-without-consent-rethinking-the-group-of-companies-doctrine\/","url_meta":{"origin":353796,"position":0},"title":"Tangling the Non-Signatories without \u201cConsent\u201d: Rethinking the \u201cGroup of Companies\u201d Doctrine","author":"Editor","date":"May 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Mohammad Atik Saiyed\u2020 and Shukla Pooja Sunilkumar\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":"group of companies","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/group-of-companies.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/group-of-companies.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/group-of-companies.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/group-of-companies.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":353796,"position":1},"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":275917,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/19\/the-group-of-companies-doctrine-defending-an-endangered-species-of-the-indian-arbitration-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":353796,"position":2},"title":"The Group of Companies Doctrine: Defending an Endangered Species of the Indian Arbitration Law","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 19, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Dhruv S. Patel\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\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-150-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-150-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-150-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-150-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-150-1.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":353796,"position":3},"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":273795,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/16\/2022-scc-vol-8-part-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":353796,"position":4},"title":"2022 SCC Vol. 8 Part 1","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 16, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 8, 11, 7, 2(1)(h), 16 and 45 \u2014 Non-signatory or non-party to arbitration agreement: Arbitration against, or by non-signatory or non-party to arbitration agreement, when may be invoked, discussed. The scope, ambit and validity of Group of Companies doctrine, explained. Doubting\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"SCC Part","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":265409,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/13\/confidentiality-and-open-justice-in-arbitration-disputes-in-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":353796,"position":5},"title":"A Conflict of Principles: Confidentiality and Open Justice in Arbitration Disputes in Court","author":"Editor","date":"April 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Drasti Jain* and Aryan Deshmukh**","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\/04\/New_Arbitration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Arbitration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Arbitration.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Arbitration.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Arbitration.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/353796","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=353796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/353796\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/353801"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=353796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=353796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=353796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}