您目前的位置: 首页» 研究资料» 协议继受者可以援引协议中的仲裁条款(印度案例)

协议继受者可以援引协议中的仲裁条款(印度案例)

2019918日,在Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited vs M.P.Consultancy Organisation (LTD) Mpcon一案中,印度中央邦高等法院(以下简称法院)认为,申请人的前任公司与被申请人签订的《谅解备忘录》中明确当事人应当包括其继受者和获准的受让人,故仲裁条款可以根据该备忘录转移给申请人。作为继受者的申请人可以援引仲裁条款提起仲裁。因此,法院支持了申请人根据《仲裁法》第116)条提出的指定仲裁员的申请。

一、背景介绍

2018121日,申请人的前任公司Vimarsh Consultancy Group与被申请人M.P. Consultancy Organisation Limited签订了《专业服务合同》,其中包含仲裁条款。同日,Vimarsh Consultancy Group与被申请人签订了《谅解备忘录》,Vimarsh Consultancy Group在该备忘录中被称为“乙方”,包括其继受者和获准的受让人。201348日,Vimarsh Consultancy Group变更为私人有限公司,即本案申请人Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited

当事人就《专业服务合同》产生争议。2017226日,申请人向被申请人发送了指定仲裁员的通知。被申请人回应称,申请人不是原始协议的当事人,并拒绝指定仲裁员。于是,申请人根据《仲裁法》第116)条请求法院指定仲裁员。

二、当事人观点

申请人的律师认为,根据《专业服务合同》和《谅解备忘录》,申请人有权援引申请人的前任公司与被申请人之间初始协议中的仲裁条款(Learned counsel for the applicanth as submitted that on account of the aforesaid two initial agreements, viz., Provisional Services Contract dated 01.12.2008 as also Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed on the same date between the parties, the applicant company had a legal right to invoke the arbitration clause of the initial agreement between the predecessor proprietorship firm of the applicant company and the respondent)。由于申请人是由最初的独资公司变更而产生,申请人是其继受者(successor),故有权援引仲裁条款。申请人援引了一份于2013415日签订的《经营企业销售协议》,证明其已接管前任公司的业务。最后,申请人指出,根据《谅解备忘录》,Vimarsh Consultancy Group还应包括其继受者和获准的受让人,Vimarsh Consultancy Group被申请人接管后,申请人有权援引仲裁条款。

为支持其观点,申请人援引了以下判例:(1Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.,(2013) 1 SCC 641案;(2Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (2018) 16 SCC案;(3Ameet Lalch and Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises, (2018) 15 SCC案;(4Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh, 2018 SCC Online 2771 decided on10.10.2019案;(5Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v.Canara Bank, 2019SCC Online 995案。

被申请人的律师则认为,Vimarsh Consultancy Group才是协议当事人,申请人与被申请人之间未签订直接协议,申请人不得请求指定仲裁员。即使申请人后来接管了Vimarsh Consultancy Group的业务,也不能援引Vimarsh Consultancy Group与被申请人签订的仲裁条款。被申请人的律师进一步指出,即使申请人能够援引仲裁协议,由于诉因发生在2010年,而申请人直到2017226日才援引仲裁条款,故已经超过时效。对于申请人所援引的于2013415日签订的《经营企业销售协议》,被申请人表示该协议的签署日期存疑,不是一份有效的文件,故法院不得考虑该文件。被申请人的律师还指出,根据《专业服务合同》第18条,未经被申请人事先同意,Vimarsh Consultancy Group不得将原协议中产生的权利转让给任何其他方。

为支持其观点,被申请人援引了Uttarakh and Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field Limited reported as (2018) 4 MPLJ 45案的观点认为,法院在适用《仲裁法》第11条时需要查看申请是否已在时效期内提交,申请人的申请已经超过时效,故应予以驳回。另外,为证明申请人无权援引仲裁条款,被申请人的律师还援引了Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi v. M/s. Yasikan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2018 SCC Online Del11918案和Velugubanti Hari Babu v. Parvathini Narasimha Rao and another, reported as (2016) 14 SCC 126案的观点。

三、法院认定

法院认为,本案唯一需要考虑的问题是,作为独资企业继受者的申请人是否可以援引前任独资企业与被申请人所签订协议中的仲裁条款(The sole question which falls for consideration of this Court is whether the applicant-company, which is the successor of the proprietorship firm can invoke arbitration clause contained in the agreement, which was executed between the predecessors proprietorship firm and the respondent herein)。

没有争议的是,涉案初始《专业服务合同》的当事人是独资公司Vimarsh Consultancy Group和被申请人,二者于当日又签订了《谅解备忘录》,其中规定被申请人Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organization Ltd应当包括其继受者和获准的受让人,Vimarsh Consultancy Group也应当包括其继受者和获准的受让人。初始《专业服务合同》第21条为仲裁条款,规定双方之间产生的任何争议、请求或分歧应提交双方约定的仲裁员解决。因此,法院毫不犹豫地认为,基于这份《谅解备忘录》,仲裁条款可以转让给申请人Thus, this Court has nohesitation to hold that the arbitration clause was assignable to the applicant company on the basis of this MOU only)。

申请人援引了其与Vimarsh Consultancy Group的股东于2013415日签订的销售协议。该协议规定申请人接管Vimarsh Consultancy Group的业务。与此同时,被申请人则依据《专业服务合同》18条,该条规定,未经客户事先书面同意,承包商不得转让或转移,或在实际上或由于接管、合并或承包商的其他身份或性质的改变而导致被转让或转移其在本合同下的任何权利或义务或合同中的任何部分、股权或利益(the contractor shall not, without the prior written consent of the client, assign or transfer or cause to be assigned or transferred, whether actually or as the result of takeover, merger or other change of identity or character of the contractor, any of its rights or obligations under this contract or any part, share or interest therein)。被申请人的律师根据该条款认为,未经被申请人同意,Vimarsh Consultancy Group不得将其在《专业服务合同》下的业务转让给申请人。细度上述文件,法院初步认为申请人是Vimarsh Consultancy Group的继受者(Thus prima facie on perusal of the aforesaid documents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant-company is the successor of VIMARSH, Consultancy Group)。

随后,法院援引了最高法院在Emaar MGF LandLtd. Vs. Aftab Singh, reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 2771案中对2015修正案,尤其是对新增的116A)条的分析。2015年修正案增加的第116-A)条规定:“最高法院或高等法院(视具体情况而定),在审议根据第(4)款、第(5)款或第(6)款提出的任何申请时,尽管有任何法院的任何判决、裁令或命令,应仅限于审查仲裁协议是否存在。”(11. (6-A) The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court, while considering any application under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.)从该条规定来看,立法意图非常清楚,法院应当且只需审查仲裁协议是否存在。

另外,法院还援引了最高法院在Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank and others, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC995案中关于“集团公司”原则的判决,相关段落摘录如下:

10.2根据合同法的原则,某一集团内的一个公司所签订的协议不能对同一集团的其他成员产生约束力,因为每个公司都是独立的法人实体,拥有独立的法律权利和义务。除非根据代理或代表原则行事,否则签订协议的母公司或子公司将是集团中受该协议约束的唯一实体。类似地,仲裁协议也适用相同的原则,通常情况下,只有签订协议的公司才受协议的约束。(As per the principles of contract law, an agreement entered into by one of the companies in a group, cannot be binding on the other members of the same group, as each company is a separate legal entity which has separate legal rights and liabilities. The parent, or the subsidiary company, entering into an agreement, unless acting in accord with the principles of agency or representation, will be the only entity in a group, to be bound by that agreement. Similarly, an arbitration agreement is also governed by the same principles, and normally, the company entering into the agreement, would alone be bound by it.)”

10.3根据‘集团公司’原则,如果当事人的行为表明当事人有同时约束签署方和非签署方的明确意图,仲裁协议的非签署方也可能受仲裁协议的约束(A non-signatory can be bound by an arbitration agreement on the basis of the "Group of Companies" doctrine, where the conduct of the parties evidences a clear intention of the parties to bind both the signatory as well as the non-signatory parties)。法院和仲裁庭曾援引这一原则以列入集团中的非签署成员,如果法院和仲裁庭认为,根据当事人的共同意图,该非签署成员是合同的必要当事人。

10.4‘集团公司’原则起源于法国1970年的仲裁实践。‘集团公司’原则指的是在现代多方商业交易中,对仲裁协议的默示同意(The 'Group of Companies' doctrine indicates the implied consent to an agreement to arbitrate, in the context of modern multiparty business transactions)。该原则首次在Dow Chemical v. Isover-Saint-Gobain, 1984 Rev Arb 137; 110 JDI 899(1983)案中被提出。

法院和仲裁庭也会适用‘集团公司’原则,当集团中的一个公司签订了仲裁协议,该集团中的非签署附属公司、姐妹公司或母公司也受该仲裁协议的约束,如果案件的事实和情况表明所有当事人具有约束集团中的签署方和非签署附属公司的共同意图(The 'Group of Companies' doctrineh as been invoked by courts and tribunals in arbitrations, where an arbitration agreement is entered into by one of the companies in the group; and the non-signatory affiliate, or sister, or parent concern, is held to be bound by the arbitration agreement, if the facts and circumstances of the case demonstrate that it was the mutual intention of all parties to bind both the signatories and the nonsignatory affiliates in the group)。根据‘集团公司’原则,如果母公司或控股公司,或公司集团的成员是仲裁协议的签署方,而作为非签署方的该集团内的其他实体参与了商事合同的谈判或履行,或作出声明表明其打算受合同约束,则该非签署方也将受到相关合同的约束(The doctrine provides that a nonsignatory may be bound by an arbitration agreement where the parent or holding company, or a member of the group of companies is a signatory to the arbitration agreement and the nonsignatory entity on the group has been engaged in the negotiation or performance of the commercial contract, or made statements indicating its intention to be bound by the contract, the nonsignatory will also be bound and benefitted by the relevant contracts)。

‘集团公司’原则可适用于约束作为非签署人的某一母公司的关联公司,或适用于在仲裁中加入第三方,如果该关联公司或第三方与仲裁协议的其中一个签署方之间有直接联系,标的存在直接共性,当事人之间的交易具有复合性(The circumstances in which the 'Group of Companies' Doctrine could be invoked to bind the nonsignatory affiliate of a parent company, or inclusion of a third party to an arbitration, if there is a direct relationship between the party which is a signatory to the arbitration agreement; direct commonality of the subject matter; the composite nature of the transaction between the parties.)。

‘复合交易’是指本质上相互关联的交易,或者如果没有为达到共同目标,共同对争议产生影响的补充协议或附属协议的协助、执行和履行,协议本身的履行可能不可行(A ‘composite transaction’ refers to a transaction which is inter-linked in nature; or, where the performance of the agreement may not be feasible without the aid, execution, and performance of the supplementary or the ancillary agreement, for achieving the common object, and collectively having a bearing on the dispute)。

10.5 ‘集团公司’原则也适用于如下情况,即存在一个在组织和财政方面联系紧密的集团结构,从而构成一个单一的经济单元或单一的经济实况。在这种情况下,签署方和非签署方都受仲裁协议的约束。这尤其适用于当一家公司的资金被用于在财政上支持或对集团其他成员进行重组时(The Group of Companies Doctrine has also been invoked in cases where there is a tight group structure with strong organizational and financial links, so as to constitute a single economic unit, or a single economic reality. In such a situation, signatory and nonsignatories have been bound together under the arbitration agreement. This will apply in particular when the funds of one company are used to financially support or restructure other members of the group)。

10.6. 最高法院在Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.,(2013) 1 SCC 641案和最近的Ameet LalChand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises,(2018) 15 SCC 678案中也适用了‘集团公司’原则。”

另外,被申请人认为申请人的申请因超过时效而应予以驳回。为此,被申请人援引了Uttarakh and Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field Limitedreportedas (2018) 4 MPLJ 45案的观点。法院在该案中认为,在适用《仲裁法》第11条时,法院需要查看申请是否已在时效期内提交,法院还根据1963年《时效法》第137条的规定认定3年的时效期限适用于该案仲裁(in similar circumstances this Courth as held that before invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the Courtis required to see if the application has been filed within the period of limitation and this Court has also referred to Article 137 of the limitation Act, 1963 to hold that the limitation of 3 years from the date of accrual would be applicable in the cases of arbitration)。本案法院指出,虽然该案在决定仲裁条款的适用性之前处理了时效限制问题,但仔细阅读该判决后可知,该判决并未提及2015年修正案加入的第116-A)条。由于第116-A)条将申请指定仲裁员的审查范围限制在仲裁条款本身,故该判决不适用于本案(In the aforesaid case this Court has dealt with the issues of limitation before deciding the applicability of the arbitration clause but on due perusal of the same reveals that nowhere in the aforesaid judgment, Section 11(6-A), as inserted in the year 2015, has been referred to by this Court. In view of the same, the aforesaid judgment is distinguishable as sub-section 6A has limited the scope of the application for appointment of arbitrator to the examination of arbitration clause only)。

对于被申请人所援引的Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi v. M/s. Yasikan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.reported as 2018 SCC Online Del11918案的判决,法院表示,该判决并未注意到最高法院在Chloro Controls India Private Ltd. (supra)案和Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (supra)案中作出的观点,故该判决不适用于本案。此外,就本案而言,法院已经认定仲裁条款也可以根据《谅解备忘录》的规定加以转让。

综上所述,法院支持了申请人根据《仲裁法》第116)条提出的申请,并指定了一名仲裁员审理当事人之间的争议。

四、评论

本案涉及根据《仲裁法》第116)条提出的指定仲裁员的申请。2015年修正案新增的第116-A)条规定:“最高法院或高等法院(视具体情况而定),在审议根据第(4)款、第(5)款或第(6)款提出的任何申请时,尽管有任何法院的任何判决、裁令或命令,应仅限于审查仲裁协议是否存在。”根据该新增的规定,法院在决定是否指定仲裁员时,应当且只需审查仲裁协议是否存在,无需查看仲裁是否在时效期限内提出,故被申请人以超过时效作为抗辩被法院驳回。

在本案中,申请人的前任公司与被申请人签订了包含仲裁条款的《专业服务合同》,又于同日签订了《谅解备忘录》。该备忘录中明确当事人应当包括其继受者和获准的受让人。根据该《谅解备忘录》,法院毫不犹豫地认为仲裁条款可以转让给申请人。根据申请人提交的证据,申请人是其前任公司的继受者,因此法院认为,仲裁条款已经转让给申请人,即本案当事人之间存在仲裁协议。为支持其观点,法院还援引了关于“集团公司”原则的判例。

值得注意的是,尽管法院认为当事人之间存在仲裁协议,并支持了申请人指定仲裁员的请求。但是,被申请人仍然可以在仲裁程序中就仲裁条款是否存在进行抗辩。