Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. It is submitted that the entire agreement and all the benefits thereunder accrued to the said DLF Industries Limited under the contract agreement dated 16th April, 1997, including the arbitration agreement were assigned to the petitioner. He submits that in case of any dispute between parties thus, the petitioner was entitled to invoke the said arbitration agreement recorded in the contract agreement dated 16th April, 1997 for resolving the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. He submits that the arbitration agreement is also assignable. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in case of Shayler vs. Woolf (1946) 2 All England Law Reports, 54 and more particularly on a portion of the said judgment at page 58. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Rajashan High Court in case of Aerens Goldsouk International Limited Company vs. Samit Kavadia & Ors. 2008 (2) Arbitration Law Report, 545 (Rajasthan) and in particular paragraphs 20, 24 and 26. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in case of M/s.Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited vs. M/s.Bharat Spun Pipe Co. AIR 1975, Calcutta, 8 and more particularly paragraphs 2 to 4. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Khardah Company Limited vs. Raymon & Company (India) Private Limited, AIR 1962 SC 1810 and more particularly paragraphs 7, 11 and 12.

26. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that arbp509-11 the arbitration agreement is a right and not an obligation. Severality of the arbitration agreement from the contract is a legal fiction for the purpose of arbitration. The consent is not necessary for assignment of arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement survives even if the main contract is terminated or if such contract does not survive or even it comes to an end. He submits that the consent of the respondent to assign the contract as a whole was proved by the petitioner before the arbitral tribunal. Requisites of the arbitration agreement described under section 7 of the Arbitration Act thus would have no application to the arbitration agreement assigned in favour of the petitioner. The respondent had already accepted the contractual relation with the petitioner as assignee of the contract. The respondent had acted upon the contract. The memorandum of sale agreement has to be read with the agreement dated 16 th April, 1997.

76. In my view, there is no substance in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that even if the two contracts were assigned in favour of the petitioner, the arbitration agreement forming part of such contracts was not assigned. The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondent interpreting section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 are not relevant to decide whether arbitration agreement can be assigned or not. Under section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, it is provided that an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. It is provided that the arbitral tribunal has power to rule on its own jurisdiction including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbp509-11 arbitration agreement and for that purpose, the arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. Merely because a party has appointed an arbitrator or has participated in the appointment of an arbitrator, he is not precluded from raising a plea of jurisdiction in the arbitral proceedings. The scheme of section 16 permitting a party to raise such an objection of jurisdiction though he had participated in the appointment of an arbitrator in an arbitration, without intervention of the Court is totally different and is limited only for that purpose. In my view, the judgments interpreting section 16 of the Arbitration Act would not apply in case of an assignment of a contract including arbitration agreement.

78. In my view, no separate execution of the arbitration agreement was required to be executed between the petitioner and the respondent, in view of the fact that the said two contracts containing arbitration agreement was already assigned in favour of the petitioner and the entire contracts were acted upon by both the arbp509-11 parties herein.

79. In view of the assignment of the said two contracts in favour of the petitioner, the arbitration agreement contained therein also stood assigned in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had thus locus standi and had rightly invoked the said arbitration agreement. The impugned order holding that arbitration agreement was not assigned in favour of the petitioner shows patent illegality.