Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

43. The contention of PNBHFL to the effect that upon assignment, it can no longer be a party to any proposed arbitration is liable to be rejected. Firstly, the contention of DLF that the assignment itself was illegal/ not in accordance with law is an aspect that cannot be adjudicated without the joinder of PNBHFL. Secondly, even after assigning a contract containing an arbitration clause, the assignor can be compelled to arbitrate in certain situations. Gary B. Born in his book "International Commercial Arbitration"45, has stated as under:

"If an assignment of an arbitration clause is validly effected, then the assignee will have rights (and obligations) under the clause. In addition, the original assignor may also retain such rights (either as to pre- assignment events or genreally, depending on the terms of the assignment and any restrictions on assignability)."

46. Prima facie, despite assignment of the SPA to Omkara, PNBHFL would be a necessary party as regards pre-assignment disputes, including dispute/s relating to non-acceptance of the offer of DLF and/or dispute/s concerning purported irregularities in the assignment of debt.

47. The judgment of Singapore Court of Appeal in BXH vs BXI (supra), relied upon by the PNBHFL is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the said judgment was rendered in a challenge to an award passed by the arbitral tribunal and not at the referral stage. Furthermore, in the said case, it was the assignor who had invoked the arbitration clause after having assigned the right to a debt and right to arbitrate in relation to that particular debt to the assignee. It was in the said context the court held that the assignor could no longer arbitrate in relation to the said debt. In the present case, it is neither the assignor nor the assignee but the pledgors who have invoked the (1963) 3 SCR 183 arbitration clause being aggrieved by the alleged actions/omissions on the part of the assignor and assignee.

"135. The Arbitration Act does not define the phrase "person claiming through or under" a party. A person "claiming through or under" a party is not a signatory to the contract or agreement, but can assert a right through or under the signatory party. Russel on Arbitration states that an assignee can invoke the arbitration agreement as a person "claiming through or under" a party to the arbitration agreement. An assignee takes the assigned right under a contract with both the benefit and burden of the arbitration clause. Similarly, the English courts have held that a transferee or subrogate can claim through or under a party to the arbitration agreement. Under the English law, the typical scenarios where a person or entity can claim through or under a party are assignment, subrogation, and novation. In these situations, the assignees or representatives become successors to the signatory party's interests under the arbitration agreement. They step into the shoes of the signatory party, from whom they derive the right to arbitrate, rather than claiming an independent right under the arbitration agreement.