Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 148 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Ace Pipeline Contracts Private Limited vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 4 April, 2007

Ahuja Classes vs Bothra Classes on 8 September, 2020

The `classical notion' that the High Court while exercising its power under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for short `the Act') must appoint the arbitrator as per the contract between the parties saw a significant erosion in ACE Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., 2007(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 407 : 2007(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 335 : (2007) 5 SCC 304 , wherein this Court had taken the view that though the contract between the parties must be adhered to, deviations therefrom in exceptional circumstances would be permissible.
Gujarat High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

M/S Sikka Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 17 November, 2011

The facts of ACE Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. indicates that the appointment of the Arbitrator by the Respondent in that case was made on the very date that the petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Act. However, in the present case, the appointment has been made long after filing of the petition under Section 11(6) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

The Supreme Industries Limited vs Madhya Pradesh Warehousing And ... on 17 August, 2017

7. The apparent dichotomy in ACE Pipeline v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 5 SCC 304 and Union of India v. Bharat Battery Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 684] was reconciled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Northern Railway Admn., Ministry of Railway v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 240], wherein the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act was sought to be emphasised by taking into account the expression "to take the necessary measure" appearing in sub-section (6) of Section 11 and by further laying down that the said expression has to be read along with the requirement of sub-section (8) of Section 11 of the Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Order vs Unknown on 28 August, 2009

15. Any move by the applicant for the purpose of appointment of an individual arbitrator despite the fact that the arbitration clause enumerates an official of the respondent/Corporation itself, is for the parties to work out in appropriate forum under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the judgments of the Supreme Court in ACE Pipeline Contracts (P) Limited v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, [2007] 5 SCC 304, India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd., [2007] 5 SCC 510 and Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd., [2000] 8 SCC 151 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable for the purpose of this Court deciding an interim measure of protection under Section 9 of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Unknown vs V.Periya Karuppiah on 22 June, 2012

In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 5 SCC 304 (Ace Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd., v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,) it has been held that the parties when appointed a named Arbitrator cannot question the mandate. The terms of the partnership agreement would go to show that the petitioner and the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as named Arbitrator only for his skills in the mining process, and also after considering his necessity to decide the dispute in between petitioner and the 1st respondent. Therefore, the principle that no man can be a judge for his own cause is not applicable to the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

Venkatesh Earthen Private Ltd. vs Union Of India on 14 February, 2019

7. The apparent dichotomy in ACE Pipeline v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 5 SCC 304 and Union of India v. Bharat Battery Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 684] was reconciled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Northern Railway Admn., Ministry of Railway v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 240], wherein the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act was sought to be emphasised by taking into account the expression "to take the necessary measure" appearing in sub- section (6) of Section 11 and by further laying down that the said expression has to be read along with the requirement of sub- section (8) of Section 11 of the Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Valecha Engineering Lim. vs M/S. D.S. Constructions Ltd. & Anr. on 6 April, 2009

In the case of Ace Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd. vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 5 SCC 304, it was held that on failure of the appointing authority to appoint arbitrator within a reasonable time, mandamus can be issued under Section 11(6) to authority concerned to appoint arbitrator, as far as possible as per arbitration clause. However, in large number of cases, it is found that it would not be conducive in the interest of parties or for any other reasons to be recorded in writing and that the choice of arbitrator can go beyond the designated persons or institutions in appropriate cases. But the court should normally adhere to the terms of arbitration clause except in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded or where both parties agree for a common name. It was held that once a party has entered into an agreement with eyes wide open it cannot wriggle out of the situation on the claim that the designated person being an officer of the other side Arb. P. No.90/2008 Page 8 of 15 would be not be impartial or objective. However, if appellant feels that the arbitrator has notched independently or impartially, or it has suffered any bias, it will always be open to it to make application under S. 34 to set aside the award on ground that arbitrator acted with bias or malice in law or fact.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - M Singh - Full Document

M/S.Film Craft vs Prasar Bharati on 6 December, 2017

40. The classical notion earlier in vogue was that the High Court, in exercising power under Section 11 of the Act, will appoint the Arbitrator as per the contract between the parties. This principal saw significant erosion in ACE Pipeline Contractors (P) Ltd. vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ((2007) 5 SCC 304) wherein the Supreme Court had taken the view that though the contract between the parties must be adhered to, deviations therefrom in exceptional circumstances would be permissible.
Madras High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next