Arbitration Agreement Binding On Third Party

“The amended provision thus limits the intervention of the judicial authority to a single aspect, that is, that the judicial authority`s refusal to refuse to bring the matter to court is limited to one aspect when it finds that, prima facie, there is no valid arbitration agreement. Other conditions that were found by this court in various statements prior to the amendment were not to be met, and the legislative intent was to depart clearly from compliance with various conditions, as noted in the judgment of P. Anand Gajapathi Raju (supra) and Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd(supra). (see item 46) In March 2015, Kabab-Ji filed an arbitration application against KFG. In particular, KFG has failed to meet its FDA development obligations and has acquired, without Kabab-Ji`s approval, expertise in developing its own restaurants. The court handed down its sentence in September 2017 by upgoing Kabab-Ji`s complaints against KFG and sentencing Kabab-Ji to pay more than $7 million a day to Kabab-Ji, plus interest. The respondents then challenge the arbitration tribunal`s argument of incompetence for V.X.________. They point out, as do the arbitrators, that the complainant herself acknowledged, in her appeal to the hearing, the existence of contracts in favour of a third party in the agreements. It also considers that all parties, with the exception of the applicant, believe that the intention of the signatories to the agreements is to create a contract in favour of the X.________. This common intent would also arise from the circumstances of this case.

V.X.________ had to be actively involved in the restructuring process of the X.________ Group; in this context, it had certain rights, but also certain obligations for the implementation of which it was to be able to obtain the Z.X.________ shares, if necessary through arbitration; Its situation was different from that of the other companies in the X.________ group, since it was the only one to have made commitments to third parties, in this case the French regulatory authority. As a result, it cannot be denied the right to act in the arbitration proceedings alongside the other defendants in order to achieve the implementation of the complainant`s obligations. “As the law evolves, he has recognized that modern business transactions often take place across multiple levels and agreements. There may be transactions within a group of companies. The circumstances in which they entered the law may reflect the intention of both the signatory and non-signatory entities within the same group. By leading a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement, the Court moves closer to the case by assigning to the transactions a meaning consistent with the business acumen that should be attributed to them. Therefore, factors such as the report of a non-signatory to a party that signed the agreement weigh in the balance sheet the coexistence of the object and the connescence of concentration. The group`s main objective is to facilitate the fulfillment of mutual intent between the parties where the circumstances indicate that the intention was to bind both the signatories and the non-signatories.

The effort is to find the true core of the trade agreement and to detach itself from a multilayered structure of trade agreements, the intention of tying up someone who is not formally a signatory, but who has made a commitment to be bound by the acts of a signatory. As early as 1988, the Paris Court of Appeal recognized that a third party could be bound by a compromise clause if he was involved in the performance of the contract and that he could be considered aware of the existence and scope of the arbitration clause (Paris Court of Appeal, November 30, 1988, Sté Korsnas Marma/).