There are cases where parties were bound by arbitration agreements to which they were not originally parties. We provide an overview of some of the most common scenarios and examples, including the “business group” doctrine, divestment, universal succession and third-party rights. But there are cases where parties have been allowed to return to or be related to arbitration agreements, in which they were not originally involved. Even in the context of an arbitration agreement, the concepts of corporate legal personality and contractual practice are not always invisible. The Calcutta Supreme Court at Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Bharat Spun Pipe Co., AIR 1975 Cal 8, when deciding on the application to quash an arbitration award, discussed the extent of the assignment and found that the correct legal position appears to be the question of whether the contract can be surrendered or not depends on the nature of the contract. A contract in the nature of a personal confederation cannot be transferred. Second, the rights to a contract may be transferred, but the obligations arising from a contract cannot be legally transferred. Third, the intent of the access capacity would depend on the conditions and language used in a treaty.
Finally, the existence of a compromise clause does not, in itself, render the contract unversable or terminated. In accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the annulment is applicable at the expiry of the period, so that an arbitration award can be carried out in the same way as a court order, in accordance with the provisions of the 1908 Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the arbitral award may be awarded in accordance with the provisions of the 1908 Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the transfer of the decree. The Bombay High Court in Agri Marketing Co. SARL v. Imperial Exports Ltd., (2002) 2 Bom CR 646, in deciding on the enforcement of a sentence, found that the law on the basis of a compromise clause can be surrendered even after the arbitration has been started and that the transferee can simply resume the arbitrator`s procedure without the need for a new departure. The law is, however, subject to two important conditions: ING Bank/OWBG argued that this analysis was erroneous and that the correct interpretation of a claim under S.67 AA in 1996 was whether or not there was a valid arbitration agreement in the underlying bunker supply contracts. ING/OWBG relied on A/B in which the Court held that the challenge to one court`s arbitration decision to replace one party with another was not within the jurisdiction of S.67 AA 1996.