均为印度公司签订的仲裁地在印度之外的仲裁协议有效
裁 定
在GMR能源有限公司诉印度斗山电力私人有限公司一案中，德里高等法院根据中央邦（Madhya Pradesh ）高等法院在苏珊电力有限公司诉北美煤炭有限公司(印度)(P)有限公司(“Sasan电力”)【Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation (India) (P) Ltd (“Sasan Power”)】,和阿特拉斯出口公司诉科塔克公司(“阿特拉斯出口”)案例【Atlas Exports Industries v. Kotak &Co (“Atlas Exports”) 】的裁定中，未禁止印度的双方当事人选择国外仲裁地,诸如此类的问题会涉及到1996年《仲裁和调解法》的第二部分，根据1958年《承认和执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(“纽约公约”)和1927年《执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(“日内瓦公约”)处理外国裁决及其执行。
德里高等法院还根据绿控印度Pvt有限公司诉Severn Trent净水公司(“绿控”)【Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc & Ors (“Chloro Control”)】一案的判例，维持了新加坡国际仲裁中心第316/16号Arb. ACU(“仲裁程序”)非仲裁条约成员国的强制执行。此外，德里高等法院还认为，在Sudhir Gopi诉Indira Gandhi国立公开大学(“Sudhir Gopi”)一案中，关于人格混同原则（principle of alter ego）不具有可仲裁性，这是因疏忽引起的过失。(“有失妥当”)。
背 景
2010年1月22日，本案的第二被告GMR Chattisgarh能源有限公司(“GCEL”)与第一被告印度斗山电力私人有限公司于2010年1月22日签订三份协议(“EPC协议”)。
2013年12月17日，本案的第二被告GCEL、第三被告GMR基建公司(“GIL”)及第一被告印度斗山公司于2013年12月17日签署一份单独的公司保函(“公司保函”)。
2015年7月1日和2015年10月30日，本案的第一被告印度斗山公司与原告GMR能源有限公司(“GMR Energy”)于签署了两份谅解备忘录(“MOUs”)。
争议的焦点主要集中于EPC协议、公司保函和谅解备忘录上，第一被告印度斗山公司对第三被告 GIL、原告GMR能源公司和第二被告GCEL提起仲裁要求履行相应的义务。
原告GMR 能源公司向德里高等法院提起了民事诉讼，对第一被告斗山印度公司提起、或继续仲裁程序的行为提出异议。在仲裁过程中，原告GMR能源公司虽然没有签署三份EPC协议，公司保函，但存在两份谅解备忘录、家族治理、股权转让和与第二被告GCEL和第三被告GIL的人格混同的情况，也被提起了反诉。
原告GMR能源公司在民事诉讼中质疑道，原告GMR能源公司认为自己不是适格的被申请人，并在新加坡的仲裁程序终止作为被申请人这一身份。
德里高等法院于2017年7月4日通过了一项临时单方裁定，裁定中规定在下一次庭审前不得为原告GMR能源公司委任仲裁员。原告GMR能源公司还根据1908年《民事诉讼法》(以下简称“CPC”)第39号令第1条和第2条申请了保全。被告印度斗山公司根据第39号命令(第4条)提出两项申请：(a)解除2017年7月4日命令的效力(禁令解除);(b)根据该法第45条的规定，请求德里高等法院要求当事人进行仲裁(司法机关将当事人提交仲裁的权力)。
II. 第一被告印度斗山公司的答辩意见
主要论点概括如下：
A. 仲裁程序中对原告提出请求
1. 第一被告印度斗山公司、第二被告GCEL、第三被告 GIL 与原告之间存在有效的仲裁协议。且原告与三被告之间人格混同，为第二被告提供保证，因此在仲裁程序中作为被申请人适格。
2. 基本事实
(a) 原告GMR能源公司是第二被告GCEL的控股公司。并已承担了第二被告对第一被告印度斗山公司应负的法律责任。
(b) 原告GMR 能源公司为第二被告GCEL的付款义务提供了担保，并无条件地替第二被告承担了一些付款义务。此时，原告GMR 能源公司持有第二被告100%的股份。是由同一个家族管理的混合基金，管理层都是同一套班子。
(c) EPC协议规定,公司确保由该协议引发的任何争议都将根据新加坡国际仲裁中心的规定通过仲裁解决,另外两个备忘录也有相同的仲裁协议,为了确保第一被告与第二被告之间的三份EPC协议支付义务是由原告GMR能源公司担保履行，仲裁条款的效力扩张至原告GMR 能源公司。另外，对与签字方人格混同的主体进行仲裁是一项公认的原则，这一原则，不仅在印度，在新加坡也同样适用。
4. 仲裁庭有权对人格混同问题作出裁定，本院不能继续审理原告GMR 能源公司是否应当参与仲裁程序。
5．本案不能援引德里高等法院在Sudhir Gopi一案中的裁定，因为在Sudhir Gopi一案中的争议不属于国际仲裁，而应该适用该法第一部分的规定，因此本案不能参照这一裁定。
仲裁程序适用本法第二部分
1，参照最高法院在Sasan与Atlas Exports一案中的判例, 当事人主张印度的双方当事人可以选择国外的仲裁地，诸如此类的协议与印1872年合同法案28节中规定合同效力性的条款一致。
2，原告GMR能源公司援引TDM基建一案的判例是不恰当的，因为TDM基建一案的裁决是根据该法第11条做出的决定，与建筑商诉德里发展局案(Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority)一案援引此判例的情况不同，该判例对此案没有约束力。
III. 原告GMR 能源公司的起诉意见
A.仲裁程序中对GMR能源公司提出请求
1，原告GMR 能源公司并没有签署任何仲裁协议，在未经其书面同意的情况下，不能以人格混同或以担保人的身份为由对他提起国际仲裁。
2，由于两家公司是独立运作、不同的法律实体，第一被告斗山公司无权基于人格混同对原告GMR能源公司提起仲裁，仅凭两家公司的管理层是同一套班子这一事实，这两个公司依然是两个独立的个体。
3，以谅解备忘录为由对原告GMR能源公司提起请求是不合理的，无可争议的是，2016年11月3日的信函终止了两份谅解备忘录的效力，且该信函中没有提及仲裁程序。
4，原告GMR 能源公司不是仲裁协议的一方当事人，但第一被告印度斗山公司却对原告GMR能源公司提起了仲裁请求，这一做法不仅没有法律依据而且有滥诉之嫌。
仲裁程序中适用的本法第二部分
1. EPC协议和公司保函的规定：
(a) 该合同适用印度法律管辖
(b)仲裁地在新加坡
(c)按照新加坡国际仲裁中心规则进行仲裁。人们认为，由于原告GCEL与第二被告GIL以及第一被告印度斗山公司都是印度国内的公司。因此所有当事方都是印度国内的法律主体，鉴于最近对该法第2 (1)(f) (iii)节的修改，将适用该法的第一部分。第二节(1)(f)的法案指出,“国际商事仲裁”是指由合同或其他法律关系引起纠纷有关的仲裁,根据印度当前生效的法律，至少有一方当事人被认为是商事主体，另一方是在定居在国外的印度人，或是在国外注册成立的法人团体; 或管理机构在国外的公司、协会或个人团体; 或者外国政府。
2，由于仲裁双方的当事主体是印度籍，因此不能称之为国际商事仲裁，正如巴拉特铝业公司与欧胜德铝业技术服务公司一案相类似，本案的实体法应适用印度法律。
3，因为印度籍的双方当事人订立的合同必须适用印度的实体法律，所以排除适用该法案第一部分。印度斗山公司援引该法案的做法有违《合同法》第28条有关合同效力的规定。
4, 仅凭仲裁地不在印度就不能适用该法案的第二部分。只要仲裁的双方当事人是印度籍，它就不再是“国际商业仲裁”，因此根据印度的法律第44条界定“外国裁决”的主要条件的规定，也就不会被视为商业仲裁”，第45条也有类似的规定。
IV. 裁 决
1，德里高等法院认为，仲裁程序适用该法的第二部分。德里高等法院维持了印度最高法院在Atlas Exports一案的做法，在Atlas Exports一案中，最高法院须根据合同法的第23条以及第28条，对印度国内的双方当事人选择国外仲裁地这一行为，是否违反公共利益作出裁定，印度最高法院对这一做法的维持意味着印度国内的双方当事人可以自由选择外国仲裁地。中央邦高等法院也维持了sasan电力公司一案的裁决，该公司曾援引Atlas Exports案的裁决，得到了同样的裁定。德里高等法院驳回了GMR 能源公司的主张，即Atlas Exports案的裁决是根据1940年的仲裁法案做出的，因此不能适用该法案。在这个问题上，根据最高法院在富尔斯特·戴·劳森诉金达尔出口有限公司一案中的裁决，认为新法比老法更有利于国际仲裁。德里高等法院还裁定，在Seven Islands Shipping 诉Aadhar Merchantile一案中，该裁定未考虑Atlas Exports一案的判例，因此有失公正。
2，德里高等法院认为，对原告GMR 能源公司在仲裁过程被列为被申请人有法律依据。德里高等法院基于以下事实:(a) 第二被告GCEL是GMR集团的合资企业，该集团公司出现了人格混同的情况；(b)原告GMR能源公司依据已签署并已解除的谅解备忘录承担了部分付款义务; (c)在签订谅解备忘录时，原告GMR 能源公司已收购了第二被告 GCEL，第一被告印度斗山公司在裁决作出前已经对 GMR能源公司提起了请求, 德里高等法院认为最高法院在Chloro Control一案的裁定中，认为约定了法律就同样默示同意仲裁协议,第三方受益人,担保人,控制权的转让或者其他传输机制,明显的权威,刺破公司面纱,代理原则关系等。有趣的是,德里高等法院在讨论人格混同时认为, 德里高等法院在Sudhir Gopi一案中的裁定有失偏颇，只要它未能考虑人格混同的可仲裁性，以及没有考虑最高法院在Ayyasamy诉Paramasivam(“Ayyasamy”)裁定（该案最高院列出了不可仲裁的情形）即作出判决。
VI. 分析
这一裁定再次肯定了印度的双方当事人可以选择在国外仲裁，包括选择在非仲裁签署国进行仲裁，再次证明了德里高等法院等印度法院支持仲裁的做法。
【英文原文】
GMR ENERGY LIMITED V.DOOSAN POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
I.DECISION
The Delhi High Court in GMR Energy Limited v. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited &Ors relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation (India) (P) Ltd (“Sasan Power”), and Atlas Exports Industries v. Kotak &Co (“AtlasExports”) and ruled that here is no prohibition in two Indian parties opting for a foreign seat of arbitration, and such an arrangement would attract Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) which deals with the Foreign award and their enforcement under the Conventions of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award, 1958 (“New York Convention”) and the Convention on the execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1927 (Geneva Convention”).The Delhi High Court also relied on Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc & Ors (“Chloro Control”)and upheld the impleadment of a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in Singapore International Arbitration Centre no Arb. 316/16/ACU (“ArbitrationProceedings”). In addition, the Delhi High Court has also opined that the decision in Sudhir Gopi v. Indira Gandhi National Open University (“Sudhir Gopi”) that theprinciple of alter ego is non-arbitrable, is per incuriam, and not correct. (“through lack of care”).
II.BACKGROUND/FACTS:
On 22 January2010
The Defendant No. 2 GMR Chattisgarh Energy Limited (“GCEL”)entered into three agreements with the Defendant No.1 Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited (“Doosan India”), all dated 22 January 2010 (“EPC Agreements”).
On 17 December2013
A separate corporate guarantee was also executed between the Defendant No. 2 GCEL, the Defendant No. 3 GMR Infrastructure Ltd (“GIL”),and the Defendant No.1 Doosan India on 17 December 2013 (“Corporate Guarantee”).
On 1 July 2015 and 30 October 2015
Thereafter, two Memoranda of Understanding were executed between the Defendant No. 1 Doosan India and the Plaintiff GMR Energy Limited (“GMR Energy”) dated 1 July 2015 and 30 October 2015 (“MOUs”).
The EPC Agreements, Corporate Guarantee, and the MOUs became the subject matter of adispute and the Defendant No.1 Doosan India invoked Arbitration Proceedings against Defendant No 3. GIL, Plaintiff GMR Energy and Defendant No. 2 GCEL seeking enforcement of certain liabilities.
Plaintiff GMRE nergy filed a civil suit before the Delhi HC to restrain the Defendant No.1 Doosan India from instituting or continuing or proceeding with the Arbitration Proceedings. In the Arbitration Proceedings, the Plaintiff GMR Energy was impleaded even though it was not a signatory to the three EPC Agreements, the Corporate Guarantee, by virtue of two MOUs, family governance, transfer of shareholding and being alter ego of the Defendant no 2 GCEL and Defendant no 3GIL.
This was challenged by the Plaintiff GMR Energy in the civil suit which objected to being arrayed as a party and sought discharge of the Plaintiff GMR Energy as a party respondent, and termination of reference of the Arbitration Proceedings in Singapore.
On 4 July 2017
An ad interim ex parte order was passed on 4 July 2017 wherein the Delhi HC directed that no arbitrator be appointed on behalf of the Plaintiff GMR Energy until the next date of hearing. The Plaintiff GMR Energy also filed an urgent interim application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for Injunction. The Defendant Doosan India filed two applications (a) application under Order 39, Rule 4 to vacate the operation of the 4 July 2017 order (vacation of injunction) ; and (b) application under Section 45 of the Act, inviting the Delhi High Court to refer the parties to arbitration (power of the judicial authorities to refer the parties to the arbitration).
III.CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1 DOOSAN INDIA
The primary contentions have been summarized below:
A. Impleading Plaintiff GMR Energy in the Arbitration Proceedings
1. There exists a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the Defendant No1. Doosan India, the Defendant No 2. GCEL, theDefendant No. 3 GIL and the Plaintiff GMR Energy being alter ego and a guarantor of the Defendant No.2 GCEL has beenrightly impleaded in the Arbitration Proceedings.
2. The fact that:
(a) The Plaintiff GMR Energy is a holding company of the Defendant No 2. GCEL and has taken over the Defendant No 2 GCEL liabilities towards the Defendant no.1 Doosan India;
(b) The Plaintiff GMR Energy guaranteed to make payments and made certain payments on behalf of the Defendant No. 2 GCEL in partial discharge of the liability of the Defendant No 2. GCEL, and at that relevant time the Plaintiff GMR Energy owned 100% stakes in the Defendant No 2. GCEL,co-mingled funds, run by the same family, had the same Directors and officers;
(c) the EPC Agreements, the Corporate Guarantee all contain arbitration clause with the intention to resolve any dispute through arbitration under the Singapore International Arbitration Center Rules and additionally the two MOUs are also governed by the same agreements, the payment obligation being undertaken by the Plaintiff GMR Energy for assuring proper execution of three EPC Agreements between the Defendant no 1. Doosan India and Defendant No 2. GCEL, the arbitration clause would also extend to the Plaintiff GMR Energy. It was also contended that invocation of arbitration against the alter ego of a signatory is awell-recognized principle not only in India, but also in Singapore.
4. The Arbitral Tribunal is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the issue of alter ego and the same being determinable by the Arbitral Tribunal, this Court cannot proceed with the present suit to determine whether the Plaintiff is GMR Energy is liable to be proceeded in the Arbitration Proceedings.
5. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Sudhir Gopi is not applicable in the present case, since in the Sudhir Gopi case the dispute did not pertain to international arbitration but under Part I of the Act, hence the said decision has no application to the present case.
Applicability of Part II of the Act to the Arbitration Proceedings
1. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sasan Power and Atlas Exports, it was argued that two Indian parties can choose a foreign seat of arbitration, and such an arrangement would not be in contravention with Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”) which definesa void contract.
2. The Plantiffs’ GMR Energy’s reliance onTDM Infrastructure was improper since the ruling in TDM Infrastructure being a decision under Section 11 of the Act cannot be treated as a binding precedent, as was held in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority.
IV. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF GMR ENERGY
A. Impleading the Plaintiff GMR Energy in the Arbitration Proceedings
1. The Plaintiff GMR Energy being a non-signatory to any of the arbitration agreements, cannot be roped into an international arbitration by applying the principle of alter ego or “it being a guarantor” without therebeing a written guarantee.
2. The principle of alter ego does not entitle the Defendant no. 1 Doosan India to invoke arbitration against the Plaintiff GMR Energy as each company is a separate and distinct legal entity,and the mere fact that the two companies have common shareholders or common board of directors will not make the two companies a single entity.
3. The basis of impleading the Plaintiff GMR Energy on the basis of the MOUs is incorrect, as admittedly, the two MOUs stood terminated by a letter dated 3 November 2016,and which letter was not made part of the Arbitration Proceedings.
4. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff GMR Energy is not a party to the arbitration agreement,the Defendant No 1. Doosan India has imposed the Arbitration Proceedings on the Plaintiff GMR Energy, which is oppressive, vexatious apart from being illegal.
Applicability of Part II of the Act to the Arbitration Proceedings
1. The EPC Agreements as well as the Corporate Guarantee prescribe:
(a) governing law of the contract as Indian law;
(b) arbitration shall be conducted in Singapore; and
(c) arbitration shall be as per Singapore International Arbitration Center Rules. It was contended that since the relationship between the Plaintiff GCEL, the Defendant No 2. GIL and the Defendant No1. Doosan India is domestic in nature, and hence all parties being Indian, Part I of the Act would apply in view of the recent amendment to Section 2 (1) (f) (iii) of the Act. The Section 2(1) (f) of the Act states that “international commercial arbitration”means an arbitration relating to disputes arising out of legal relationships,whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law in force in India and where at least one of the parties is, an individual who is a national of, or habitually resident in, any country other than India; or a body corporate which is incorporated in any country other than India; or a company or an association or a body of individuals whose central management and control is exercised in any country other than India; or the Government of a foreign country;
2. As the arbitration is between two Indian parties, it cannot be termed as international commercial arbitration and Indian substantive law cannot be derogated from by and between two Indian parties as held in Bharat Aluminium Company and Ors v. Kaiser Aluminium TechnicalService, Inc and Ors.
3. Since two Indians cannot contract out of the law of India and the Act is a substantive law, exclusion of Part I of the Act which the Defendant No. 1. Doosan India seeks to do would be hit by Section 28 of the Contract Act which defines a voidcontract.
4. Part II ofthe Act would not apply merely because the place of arbitration is out of India. Once the arbitration is between two Indian parties, it ceases to be an “international commercial arbitration”, and therefore automatically ceases to be “considered as commercial under the law enforced in India” which is the principle condition for defining “a foreign award”under Section 44 of the Act. Accordingly, the Section 45 Application is not maintainable.
V. JUDGMENT
1.Delhi High Court held that the Arbitration Proceedings would fall under Part II of the Act. The Delhi High Court affirmed the finding of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Atlas Exports, wherein the Supreme Court hadto determine whether the fact of two Indian parties having a foreign seated arbitration would be opposed to public policy under Section 23 read with Section 28 of the Contract Act. The Supreme Court answered in affirmative,meaning that there is no prohibition for two Indian parties to opt for a foreign seat of arbitration. The Madhya Pradesh High Court also affirmed the ruling in Sasan Power which had relied on Atlas Exports to reach the same conclusion. The Delhi High Court also dismissed the GMR Energy’scontention that the decision in the Atlas Exports is under the 1940 Arbitration Act, hence not applicable under the Act. On this issue, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fuerst Day Lawson v. Jindal Exports Ltd, where in it was held that the new statute is more favourable to international arbitration than its previous incarnation. The Delhi High Court also held that the decision in Seven Islands Shipping and Aadhar Merchantile are per incuriam and not correct as they had not considered Atlas Exports.
2.Delhi High Court held that the Plaintiff GMR Energy was correctly impleaded in the Arbitration Proceedings. The Delhi High Court observed that in view of the fact that: (a) Defendant no. 2 GCEL was a joint venture of GMR Group, and the group company did not observe separate corporate formalities and comingled corporate funds; (b) Plaintiff GMR Energy relied on the MOUs signed and discharged liabilityby making part payment; and (c) at the time of entering into the MOUs, the Plaintiff GMR Energy had acquired the Defendant No 2. GCEL; the Defendant no. 1 Doosan India has made out a case for proceeding against the Plaintiff GMR Energy before arrivingat its decision, the Delhi High Court considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Chloro Control wherein it was held that the legal bases to bind alter ego to an arbitration agreement are implied consent, third party beneficiary,guarantors, assignment or other transfer mechanism of control rights, apparent authority, piercing of corporate veil, agent principle relationship etc.Interestingly, the Delhi High Court while discussing the principle of alter ego held that the decision of Delhi High Court in Sudhir Gopi is per incuriam, inso far as it failed to consider the issue of arbitrability of alter ego and the decision was passed without taking into consideration the decision of Supreme Court in A Ayyasamy v. A Paramasivam (“Ayyasamy”), wherein the Supreme Court carved out instances which cannot be referred to arbitration.
VI. ANALYSIS
This decision,re-affirming that two Indian parties can seat their arbitration outside India and setting a non-signatory to arbitration, is yet another testament to pro-arbitration approach of Indian courts with the Delhi High Court leading the charge.
来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA
桂公网安备 45050302000162号