Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) The Tribunal examined the conduct of parties, post signing of the SHA and concluded that there was correspondence between the parties at the relevant point in time.

(iii) Rodemadan was a permitted assignee of the Petitioner No. 1. The argument of the Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioner No. 1 was divested of the right to enforce the SHA due to the nomination of Rodemadan was rejected. The Tribunal observed that the assignment to Rodemadan was only an equitable assignment and the assignor would continue to be a party of the arbitration.