Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is no doubt true that Clause 17.1 of the purchase order, which is titled 'Assignment, Subcontracting', permits the buyer, viz., the plaintiff company, to assign or reassign any of its rights or obligations under the purchase order. However, as is clear from the definition itself, the buyer is essentially intended to mean the plaintiff company and by extension, this 'includes' its assignees also. To a query as to whether the claims raised by the first defendant company before the arbitral tribunal relate only to post-assignment developments or whether it also pertained to the pre-assignment supplies and developments, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, fairly conceded that pre-assignment issues were also under consideration before the said tribunal. Further, as rightly pointed out by Sri S.Ravi, learned senior counsel, though the plaintiff company claims that it had no role to play in the context of the purchase order after it executed the Deed of Assignment dated 16.09.2014 in favour of the second defendant- joint venture company, e-mail correspondence indicates its participation even after such assignment. The e-mail exchanges between the first defendant company and the third defendant company demonstrate that the plaintiff company was always kept informed by marking copies thereof to it. More significantly, the plaintiff company itself addressed an e-mail to the first defendant company on 29.10.2015 in relation to these transactions. It cannot therefore be said that the plaintiff company exited from the picture altogether after execution of the Deed of Assignment on 16.09.2014.