Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. In this case, reference has also been made to the English case of Shayler vs. Woolf wherein it was held as under :

"THAT only leaves one point and that is the arbitration clause. It is said that the contract cannot be assignable because of the existence of the arbitration clause, inasmuch as such a clause is in its nature not assignable or is only assignable (it is said) where the assigns are expressly mentioned in the clause itself or the contract which contains the arbitration clause is itself expressly declared to be assignable. In my opinion, these propositions are incapable of support in the wide way in which they are stated; nor does any of the authorities quoted to us in support of them really touch the point.
THE question whether an arbitration clause prevents a contract from being assignable must depend on the intention of the parties, and the nature of the contract will, of course, be very important. Quite apart from an arbitration clause, if the nature of the contract is one which makes it incapable of assignment, owing to its personal nature, there is no question, of course, of the assignability of the arbitration clause; but that an arbitration clause is assignable in its nature seems to me to be quite clearly contemplated by the Arbitration Act, 1889, S. 4, and it has been recognised in this Court in one of the authorities referred to, namely, Aspell v. Seymour (5).

21. In the case of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. vs. Bharat Spun Pipe Co. Ltd., AIR 1975 Cal. 8, it was held in the following words :

".........whether the contract is assignable or not depends upon the nature of the contract. A contract in the nature of a personal covenant cannot be assigned. Secondly, the rights under a contract can be assigned, but the obligations under a contract lawfully cannot be assigned. Thirdly, the intention about assignability would depend upon the terms and the language used in a contract. Fourthly, and this is important for our purpose, existence of an arbitration clause per se does make neither the contract non-assignable or assignable. But in a particular case the arbitration clause may be so worded as to afford an indication about the contract being personal or not. But apart from that the existence of arbitration clause does not, in my opinion, affect either the rights or the assignability of the contract if it is otherwise assignable."

22. If a contract is assignable, an arbitration clause will follow the assignment of the contract. (Khardah & Co. vs. Raymon & Co., AIR 1962 SC 1810, 1818). Where a contract is entered into by the sole proprietor of a business in the business name, on his taking other partners in the business, the firm could enforce the arbitration clause. (Hindustan Steel Works Construction's case (supra)

23. It is not in dispute that various payments have been made by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the present petitioner M/s. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. for the work done. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 have also issued TDS certificate in favour of the petitioner herein. In the instant case, there is an agreement executed between the present petitioner and partnership firm dated 1st October, 2001 by which it was agreed that all contracts, awards, obligations and undertakings of the running partnership concern had become the obligation of the petitioner. Hence, the arbitration agreement executed between the partnership firm is enforceable by the present petitioner. Both can enter into reference for arbitration. The petitioner rightly invoked the arbitration clause.