Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Besco Ltd. on 21 April, 2015

Libra Automotives Private Limited vs Bmw India Private Limited & Anr. on 9 July, 2019

22. The Court while exercising its power under Section 11 of the Act, cannot recast the terms of the Contract and direct the parties to go for a composite arbitration contrary to the procedure prescribed under the arbitration clause provided in distinct arbitration agreements. The overlapping of the issues does not mean that the arbitration proceedings under the two respective contracts cannot commence and continue independently. Fundamental feature of an arbitration agreement is that there is an understanding between the parties to adopt alternate mechanism for the adjudication of the future disputes that arise between them. The law does not prescribe any standard form of arbitration agreement and the parties are free to agree upon a procedure and designate the private forum where the parties would like to go in case the disputes and differences arise between them. Thus, there is to be consensus ad-idem between the parties regarding the choice of the forum. The Supreme Court in certain judgments, has held that in certain exceptional circumstances the Court has a power to make an appointment of the Arbitrator, notwithstanding the choice of the specified forum agreed between the parties. However, at the first instance, the effort of the Court would be to ensure that the parties adhere to the choice of the Arbitrator or to the mechanism for constituting the Arbitral Tribunal as envisaged by the Arbitration Agreement. It is also noteworthy that, the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Raja Transport Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 8 SCC 520, Union of India v. Singh Builders Syndicate, (2009) 4 SCC 523, Northern Eastern Railway v. Triple Engineering, (2014) 9 SCC 288 and Union of India v. BESCO, AIR 2017 SC 1628, has expressed the ARB.P. 163/2019 Page 16 of 17 opinion that where an application under Section 11(6) of the Act is filed, the procedure for appointment of an arbitrator prescribed in the agreement, be given effect to and the Court ought not to appoint an independent arbitrator without resorting to the inbuilt mechanism as agreed between the parties. Parties were conscious of the terms of the agreement and they willingly and consciously agreed for the arbitral procedure envisaged under the agreement without any reservation. Petitioner is now suggesting that the agreed choice of forum should be ignored and that part of the Agreements should be severed and further Respondent should tow it‟s line and agree to the Arbitral Tribunal contrary to what has been provided in the Contracts. This cannot be permitted and thus the relief claimed in the present petition for appointment of a common arbitrator cannot be granted. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - S Narula - Full Document

M/S Vidyawati Construction Company vs U.O.I. Thru G.M. Central Org. Railway ... on 17 November, 2020

In the case of BESCO Ltd. (supra), the Court while appointing an arbitrator not being a railway officer was in terms of General Conditions and Special Conditions of Contract which did not provide specific railway officer while in the present case the General Condition of Contract, Clause 64(3)(b) provided for two gazetted railway officers, one from the side of appellant and other from the side of Railway and this Court on 26.08.1998 had appointed two arbitrators, who therein had chosen a presiding arbitrator which had the stamp of this Court on 01.11.1999, thus, no question arose for forming a fresh Arbitral Tribunal without terminating the mandate of the earlier one. Reliance placed on the decisions are totally distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - R R Agarwal - Full Document

Technocrats Advisory Services Private ... vs Ministry Of Road Transport & Highways on 19 February, 2021

He also referred to the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Besco Limited: (2017) 14 SCC 187, where the Supreme Court following the decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Ors. v. M/s. Raja Transport (P) Ltd. (supra) held that if circumstances so warrant, the Chief Justice or a designated Judge would be free to appoint an independent Arbitrator even though an Arbitrator was specified in the Arbitration Agreement.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Co. ... vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) & ... on 27 February, 2020

34. Applying the above said principles of law, it is clear that the Arbitration Agreement between one contract cannot be incorporated into another contract, unless there is a clear intention of the parties to do so while entering into a second agreement. The facts of the present case in my view are even on a lower pedestal than the cases referred to above, as in the ARB.P. No. 591/2019 Page 17 of 22 present case the petitioner while entering into an MOU with ITI had specifically incorporated a separate Arbitration Clause to govern the sub- contract, which has been extracted above. The in-built mechanism for reference of the dispute arising between the parties was also mentioned therein, namely, to refer the disputes through International Center for Alternate Dispute Resolution. No part of the MOU even remotely indicates that there was any reference of the Arbitration Clause mentioned in the main Purchase Order in the MOU. Petitioner and ITI had agreed on the disputes and the mechanism with respect thereto that was to be adopted in the future. On the other hand, Clause 20 of the GCC provided a different mechanism of referring the disputes, whereby appointment of the Sole Arbitrator was envisaged by the CMD of BSNL, as well as the disputes that were intended to be referred.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - J Singh - Full Document

V.K. Gupta And Associates vs Superintending Engineer on 6 September, 2023

The mandate of the Arbitrator already appointed has ceased to exist because one of the Arbitrator has reclused himself from the proceedings on 17.7.2022. As such, the arbitral tribunal could not proceed with the matter, therefore, the Court further finds that the arbitral tribunal so constituted has not proceeded with the matter substantially. The arbitral tribunal shall be expensive for the parties. Therefore, in the interest of the parties as the appointing of a sole arbitrator shall reduce the cost of arbitral proceedings, therefore, by reason of above and by virtue of the law laid down by Apex Court in Union of India Vs. BESCO Ltd., AIR 2017 SC 1628, a sole arbitrator is liable to be appointed in the interest of justice.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Misra - Full Document
1