Research and Articles
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
Hotline
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
- Capital Markets Hotline
- Companies Act Series
- Climate Change Related Legal Issues
- Competition Law Hotline
- Corpsec Hotline
- Court Corner
- Cross Examination
- Deal Destination
- Debt Funding in India Series
- Deal Talk
- Dispute Resolution Hotline
- Education Sector Hotline
- FEMA Hotline
- Financial Service Update
- Food & Beverages Hotline
- Funds Hotline
- Gaming Law Wrap
- GIFT City Express
- Green Hotline
- HR Law Hotline
- iCe Hotline
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Hotline
- International Trade Hotlines
- Investment Funds: Monthly Digest
- IP Hotline
- IP Lab
- Legal Update
- Lit Corner
- M&A Disputes Series
- M&A Hotline
- M&A Interactive
- Media Hotline
- New Publication
- Other Hotline
- Pharma & Healthcare Update
- Press Release
- Private Client Wrap
- Private Debt Hotline
- Private Equity Corner
- Real Estate Update
- Realty Check
- Regulatory Digest
- Regulatory Hotline
- Renewable Corner
- SEZ Hotline
- Social Sector Hotline
- Tax Hotline
- Technology & Tax Series
- Technology Law Analysis
- Telecom Hotline
- The Startups Series
- White Collar and Investigations Practice
- Yes, Governance Matters.
- Japan Desk ジャパンデスク
Dispute Resolution Hotline
September 16, 2019India—Supreme Court holds non-signatory cannot be impleaded without establishing an intention to be bound by arbitration (Reckitt India v Reynders India)
This article was published in Lexis®PSL Arbitration on 24th July 2019
SUMMARY
In this piece, Sahil Kanuga and Siddharth Ratho of the International Dispute Resolution and Investigations practice analyze and discuss a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Reynders Label Printing wherein the principles expounded in Chloro Controls on whether a non-signatory affiliate of a party to an arbitration agreement can be impleaded and subjected to arbitration were revisited. The Supreme Court inter alia held that a non-signatory without any causal connection with the process of negotiations preceding the arbitration agreement could not be made party to the arbitration and that circumstances and correspondence post execution of an arbitration agreement could not bind a non-signatory.
For the complete article, please click here.