It should be noted that the Indian courts have held that the assignment of rights is not permitted. However, the assignment was admitted in the course of the arbitration. This is contradictory, as the ongoing arbitration proceedings are considered only as a claim. The courts or legislators should look into this issue. A rare example was the 1978 decision in Roussel-Uclaf v. GD Searle & Co Limited and GD Searle & Co, which granted a stay of legal proceedings in favour of arbitration proceedings under Section 1 of the Arbitration Act concerning a subsidiary whose parent company was a party to an arbitration agreement. In 2008, in the City of London v. Sancheti case, this decision was overturned by the English Court of Appeal, which found that Roussel-Uclaf had been mistried. The benefit of contracts may be transferred for various reasons as collateral for loans, in the context of a restructuring or acquisition of businesses or for the payment of a claim.
A frequent question that arises is whether this binds the assignee to an arbitration clause contained in the treaty and what rights are conferred on it, given that it was not originally a party. In Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards, the Court of Appeal of England confirmed that the remedy against unfair prejudice was not an inalienable legal right for shareholders and that shareholders and companies themselves could agree to refer to arbitration disputes which might otherwise support unfair prejudice, provided that third parties were not bound by the arbitral award and that the requested correction was of a nature. any, which an arbitrator may grant. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance to stay the proceedings for unjustified prejudice in favour of arbitration. In some civil courts, it is customary for mergers and restructurings to take place under ordinary law succession, resulting in the full transfer of all assets, rights and liabilities from one entity to another entity under the law. This can be done without the creditors or counterparties of the hage company being obliged to participate. The concept of assignment in arbitration is based on the principles of transfer of contractual rights. The assignment can take place at any stage, which is beneficial for the parties to the arbitration. Attribution can be beneficial in different ways. Before the dispute, in the event of an acquisition that takes place or if the party does not wish to continue investing in the project, it may assign the contractual rights (including the right to conciliation to the other parties).
During the proceedings, stressed companies can assign their claim to the party that owns the claim, without tangible assets, but without recourse to ongoing arbitration. But all this depends on the agreement of the parties concerned. The term “assignment” is defined as the transfer by a party of all their rights in a type of property, usually intangible assets such as a lease, mortgage, sales contract or partnership. The arbitration/agreement clause provides for the right to assign arbitration proceedings to the parties concerned. The question therefore arises as to whether such a right can be transferred by assignment to another party. The authors of this article discussed the extent of the attribution of arbitration and the problems encountered in awarding such attribution. A claim for damages for infringement as a result of an infringement is not a “questionable right” within the meaning of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, but a mere right of recourse within the meaning of section 6(e) of this Act and therefore cannot be assigned.