Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(14) The Nagpur decision in Chouthmal v. Ramchandra has also been cited by Shri Bagai. It has been observed in this decision that arbitrators have no power to go outside the reference and create trust or give directions regarding thereto and even if they do so, the Court should exclude that portion of the award from the decree. Shri Sahney has placed his reliance on the language of section 34 of the Arbitration Act and on an English decision reported as Shayler v. Woolf, In the English decision cited, the Court of Appeal, affirming the Court below held that the covenant before it had been expressly assigned and that the arbitration clause, nto being a personal covenant, was also assignable. As Shri Sawhney has placed principal, if nto exclusive reliance on this decision, we consider it appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the judgment given by Lord Greene, N.R., with whom Morton and Somevell, L.JJ. agreed. Thus said the Master of the Rolls-

"THATonly leaves one point and that is the arbitration clause. It is said that the contract cannto be assignable because of the existance of the arbitration clause, inasmuch as such a clause is in its nature nto 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.
THEquestion 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).
Asi have said, apart from this arbitration clause, the agreement in this case is, in my opinion, quite clearly assignable. That is because, on its true construction, it is an assignable contract, that being the intention of the parties gathered from the document when read in the light of its subject-matter and the surrounding circumstances. It seems to me that the result of that must necessarily be that the arbitration clause also follows the assignment of the subject matter of the contract. There is nothing, I conceive, in principle or authority which would prevent that from taking place.