| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. |
| Introduction | The case concerns disputes arising from failing to deliver customized software, invoking the arbitration clause between Cox & Kings and SAP India. |
| Factual Background | Cox & Kings engaged SAP India to provide ERP software. When SAP’s Hybris software project failed to meet the promised standards, Cox & Kings terminated the contract. |
| Legal Issues | 1. Whether an arbitrator can be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
2. Whether SAP’s parent company can be included in the arbitration proceedings. |
| Applicable Law | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 11 and 16). |
| Analysis | The court considered whether SAP’s parent company, though not a signatory to the agreement, could be bound to arbitration under the Group of Companies doctrine. |
| Conclusion | The Court allowed the petition, appointing an arbitrator to resolve the disputes and referring the matter of SAP’s parent company’s involvement to the arbitral tribunal. |
| Current Scenario | The appointed arbitrator will now proceed to adjudicate the dispute, including examining whether SAP’s parent company should be bound by the arbitration agreement. |
CASE SUMMARY-
In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether an arbitrator could be appointed to resolve disputes between Cox & Kings Ltd. and SAP India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Cox & Kings alleged that SAP’s software solutions, critical to their business operations, were not delivered as promised, leading to the termination of their contract. SAP denied responsibility and invoked the arbitration clause. The Court upheld the petition and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the matter, emphasizing that the arbitral tribunal would address both the claims and the involvement of SAP’s German parent company.
“The arbitral tribunal has the authority to decide on the inclusion of non-signatories under the Group of Companies doctrine.”- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Also Read- MAINTAINABILITY OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR AN ACCUSED IN CUSTODY FOR A DIFFERENT OFFENSE
