Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Mr. Gupta then placed reliance upon the following judgments, in the case of Kobelco Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. vs Lara Mining & Anr.,15 MM Aqua Technologies Ltd. vs. Wig Brothers and Engineers Ltd.16, Delhi Iron and Steel Company Limited vs UP Electricity Board and Ors.17 and Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs YasiKan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.18 and pointed out that all these cases pertained to assignment of a contract containing an arbitration clause, where the Courts had refused 13 (2013) 1 SCC 641 14 (2024) 4 SCC 1 15 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2327 16 2000 SCC OnLine Del 868 17 2002 (61) DRJ 280 18 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11918 27th November 2024 Neilan International Co Ltd vs Powerica Ltd carbp-416-2019-2024-F.doc to extended the arbitration agreement to include an assignee, since the consent to the assignment was lacking.

12. Mr Gupta, then submit that even as per Sudanese Law, the Deed of Assignment was invalid and, alternatively, even assuming the Deed of Assignment was valid, it did not result in an automatic assignment of the arbitration clause in the said contracts. In support of his contention, he pointed out that the Respondent's expert witness, Dr. Medani had deposed that in cases of an assignment of a debt Sudanese Law would 19 2019 SCC OnLine SC 677 27th November 2024 Neilan International Co Ltd vs Powerica Ltd carbp-416-2019-2024-F.doc require the express consent of the debtor which he submitted was plainly absent in the present case. He then submitted that Sudanese law, also recognised that an arbitration agreement was severable from the main contract, therefore, even assuming that only a part of the contracts were assigned, the arbitration clause under the said contracts would necessarily have to be separately assigned, which he submitted was not done.

18. Mr Gaya then without prejudice pointed out that Clause 1.1.16 the said contracts defined "Employer" which he pointed out specifically included 'successors' and 'assignees'. He thus submitted that the entire premise of the Respondent's contention that the assignment by NEC was bad in law for want of the Respondent's consent was plainly misconceived and contrary to the specific terms of the said contracts. He also placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of DLF Power Limited vs Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd 22 and the judgment in the case of Shayler vs Woolf 23 and Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Nagabhushan24 to submit that in cases where the contract itself is assignable and the contract was not of a personal nature, then the arbitration clause under such contract would also be assignable. He 21 (2022) 1 SCC 753.

C. Third, the Respondent's reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chloro Controls and Cox and Kings in support of the contention that the assignment of the said contracts by NEC to the Petitioner would be in violation of Indian public policy and the fundamental law of India as contemplated in Section 48(2)

(ii), this contention is also plainly untenable. In neither of the two judgements has the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that in all cases of an assignment of a Contract containing an arbitration clause, the assignment or any arbitration commenced pursuant to such assignment would 27th November 2024 Neilan International Co Ltd vs Powerica Ltd carbp-416-2019-2024-F.doc be invalid. On the contrary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has as in Chloro Controls noted as follows, viz.