Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.81 seconds)
Documents citing Government Of A.P. And Ors. vs N.V. Choudary And Anr. on 8 October, 1993

State Of A.P. And Anr. vs K. Sambasiva Raju on 4 January, 2002

In view of the N.V. Choudary (supra) and Mastan Rao (supra) cases it is clear that when an agreement contemplates j appointment of a panel of arbitrators, and if the party who has to nominate the panel refuses to act as such and when the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked to enforce the arbitration clause in the agreement, the Court has to appoint a panel of arbitrators but not a sole arbitrator. In this case since the agreement contemplates appointment of a panel of arbitrators, appointment of non-technical sole arbitrator is not proper and hence the order under appeal is liable to be set aside. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - R M Bapat - Full Document

Deepak Galvanising & Engineering ... vs Government Of India And Anr. on 10 September, 1997

18. The learned Counsel for the respondents has tried to rely upon the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Government of A.P. v. N. V. Choudary (1993(2) ALT 391 (F.B.)), and the decision of the Supreme Court referred to 7 supra, which is also referred to above, in support of his contention that the Court has to appoint only the named Arbitrator in the arbitration clause inspite of the fact that the respondent-Department had not chosen to respond to the request of the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator before the present applications are filed in this Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of that particular case concerned in the decision of this particular case concerned in the decision of this Court referred to 12 supra, it was observed by their Lordships that while effecting appointment of an Arbitrator, the Court will have to see whether it is desirable or feasible to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with or as nearly as possible to the intention of the parties. If it is not possible, it is open to the Court to appoint an Arbitrator of its own choice. It is seen from the said Full Bench decision of this Court that their Lordships relied upon the earlier decision of the Supreme Court referred to 7 supra in support of their view. But as already stated above, the decision of the Supreme Court referred to 7 supra was infact considered by the Supreme Court in its latter decisions referred to 5 and 6 supra and explained the circumstances under which the relevant observations were made by the Supreme Court in that case and distinguished the same on facts. The said Full Bench decision of this Court was rendered on 8-10-1993. The decision of the Supreme Court referred to 5 supra was rendered on 5-6-1993 and it was not, however, cited before the Full Bench of this Court. The other decision of the Supreme Court referred to 6 supra was rendered on 29-4-1994 and as such it was not available for the Full Bench of this Court when it delivered the judgment referred to 12 supra. In view of the above cited decisions of the Supreme Court referred to 5 and 6 supra, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Court cannot appoint any person other than the one named in the arbitration clause as an arbitrator cannot be accepted. As already stated above inasmuch as the respondents did not respond to the repeated requests of the petitioner to refer the disputes to the named Arbitrator, the respondents shall be deemed to have abdicated their authority and forfeited their right to appoint the Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause and the Court is entitled to appoint an independent Arbitrator of its choice to decide the disputes that have arisen between the parties. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who has to appoint the Arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the New Act has designated me to hear these applications and pass orders. I have, therefore, heard these applications. There is no consensus between the parties regarding the person to be appointed as an Arbitrator. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that an independent Arbitrator of my choice shall be appointed in both the applications.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 10 - R B Reddy - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. vs P. Ramaswamy And Company, Engineers And ... on 13 August, 2001

3. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration mainly contended that the order of the Court below allowing the application by removing the named arbitrators and appointing a Chief Engineer, R and B, is totally contrary to the principles laid down in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Mastan Rao, , Government of A.P. v. N.V. Choudary, , State of A.P. v. G, Ananthaiah, . The learned Counsel also had contended that the mere delay in making the award will not amount to misconduct or neglect and hence it cannot be said that the order of the Court below is justified.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Watch Company, Rep. By Its ... vs The Addl. Industrial ... on 20 July, 2005

Reference may also be made to a Full Bench of this Court in "Government of A.P. v. N.V. Choudary 1993(2) An. W.R. 430 wherein it was held that if the High Court is confronted with the judicial dicta and obiter dicta contained in two different judgments of the Supreme Court, the High Court is bound necessarily by the judicial dicta It is not, however, necessary to examine this aspect since the workman herein, except examining himself, in support of his plea that his services were terminated, neither produced any documentary evidence nor did he seek a direction to summon records including the muster rolls from the office of the employer, nor did he choose to examine any other witness, not even a co-employee, in support of his plea that his services had been terminated by the Employer. Initial burden of establishing his plea of termination undoubtedly lies on the person who approaches the Court seeking relief.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

K. Venkateswarlu vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 23 April, 2003

4. It is the further case of the applicant that the so-called convenor-Arbitrator was in fact the Engineer-in-Chief (Administration) but not the Engineer-in-chief, Investigation. There was no such post of Engineer-in-chief, Investigation in litigation and CAD Department. The second arbitrator suggested by the said convenor was Joint Secretary to Government, whereas the Arbitration clause in the agreement provides for a Deputy Secretary, Finance and Planning Department. Under the circumstances, the applicant gave a notice to the first respondent in his letter dated 21.1.1990 requesting him to concur with the appointment of a sole arbitrator by selecting any one from the three retired Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. However, the first respondent rejected the said contention of the applicant in his letter-dated 7.2.1990. The applicant therefore, filed O.P. No. 196 of 1990 in the Court of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, requesting for appointment of an independent and qualified person as a sole arbitrator. However, O.P. No. 196 of 1990 was dismissed on 4.8.1997 in terms of the judgment reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N.V. Choudary, (FB). Meanwhile, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the New Act' for brevity) came into force with effect from 16.8.1996.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S.Larsen And Toubro Ltd vs 1. State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 14 September, 2015

It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court, in A&G Projects & Technologies Ltd107, proceeded on the premise that all the three sales were Section 3(a) sales. Nevertheless the scope of Section 6(2) of the CST Act was considered therein. Once a Judgment is rendered by the Supreme Court, it should not be contended later that a particular point was not raised or considered by the learned Judges or that it is open to the High Court to re-consider the same. (Delhi Cloth General Mills v. Shambunadh ; Government of A.P. v. N. Chowdary ).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 239 - Cited by 1 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. vs G. Ananthaiah And Ors. on 12 November, 1996

The said decision of the Supreme Court was referred to and followed in the Full Bench decision of this court reported in Government of A.P. v. N. Choudary (1993 (2) APLJ 430 (SC)), the facts in which are also similar to the present facts. It is observed by Their Lordships in that Full Bench decision of this Court in Para 56 of the Judgment as follows :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - R B Reddy - Full Document

Hindustan Prefab Ltd. vs Dda on 12 February, 2009

5. It is well settled that the appointment of an arbitrator can be made by appointing an office by designation and it is not necessary that the appointment has to be made of an individual person only (See AIR 1958 Punjab 19, AIR 1964 Punjab 230, AIR 1980 Delhi 244). The expression "person" used in Clause 25 is capable of interpretation to mean not only a natural person, but also including a juristic entity. After all, the nominated "office" would be manned by a natural living person only. The agreement does not specify a particular qualification or disqualification for being appointed as an arbitrator. Therefore, FAO(OS) 108.07 Page 4 of 8 instead of nominating an individual arbitrator on each occasion a vacancy arises, the appointing authority may nominate by designation the office so that incumbent of the office may act as the arbitrator from time to time. We may also refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. vs. N. Choudhary 1993 (2) APLJ 430 (SC) in para 56, which reads as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Mudgal - Full Document
1