In Brief
MTNL challenged Delhi High Court orders that dismissed its objections to arbitration with Canara Bank and its subsidiary CANFINA over disputed bonds worth Rs. 200 crores. MTNL argued no written arbitration agreement existed and CANFINA could not be bound. The Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement existed through exchange of Cabinet minutes, draft agreements, court orders, and pleadings—satisfying the Arbitration Act's requirements for written agreements. Invoking the Group of Companies doctrine, the Court held CANFINA, as a wholly-owned subsidiary, was a necessary party to the arbitration given the inter-linked transactions. The appeals were partly allowed, remitting the matter to the arbitrator with all three parties joined.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.