Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 217 (2.72 seconds)
Documents citing S.B.P. & Co vs Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr on 26 October, 2005

M/S Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 25 October, 2013

24. I am thus of the view that the disputes arising between the parties can only be decided post evidence being led and the mode of settlement would be arbitration. The touch stone of the satisfaction of the Chief Justice or his designate in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in S.B.P. Vs. Patel Engineering and Reva Electric Car Vs. Green Mobil cases (supra) thus stands satisfied.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Gautam Landscapes Private Limited vs Shailesh S Shah on 4 April, 2019

In the case of S.B.P. & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd.(Supra), the Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Act was not an administrative order. It is passed in exercise of a judicial power. ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 03:56:17 ::: PDP 85 FB-JT-ABP-466-17, ABA-246-16 & ABA-300-18- The Supreme Court in para 47 of the said judgment observed thus:-
Bombay High Court Cites 100 - Cited by 0 - N H Patil - Full Document

M/S Gulf Oil Corporation New Gocl, vs The Andhra Pradesh Micro And Small ... on 20 January, 2020

But, the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the judgments referred above did not take note of the principle laid down by the S.B.P. and Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd (referred supra). Even in the Full Bench judgment of the Apex Court, the issue is identical, but not based on the jurisdictional issue. When the judgment is under the same enactment, the Full Bench judgment will have precedence over the judgments of Division Bench of learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the law declared the Apex Court is a binding precedent on this Court.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Vijay Sharma vs Vivek Makhija And Anr on 4 April, 2019

In the case of S.B.P. & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd.(Supra), the Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Act was not an administrative order. It is passed in exercise of a judicial power. ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 03:56:25 ::: PDP 85 FB-JT-ABP-466-17, ABA-246-16 & ABA-300-18- The Supreme Court in para 47 of the said judgment observed thus:-
Bombay High Court Cites 100 - Cited by 0 - N H Patil - Full Document

Nirav Babubhai Patel vs Vinaykumar Mohanbhai Patel on 26 April, 2022

In view of aforesaid conspectus of law, and considering the provisions of the Page 21 of 24 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:42:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/19530/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Act, 1996, the order passed by the Arbitration Tribunal during the course of Arbitration cannot be challenged by the petitioner under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India when the constitution bench of the Apex Court in case of M/s. S.B.P. and Co. v. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr.(supra) has disapproved the stand that any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and has categorically held that such intervention by the High Court is not permissible.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - V Nanavati - Full Document

Gautam Landscapes Private Limited vs Shailesh S Shah And Anr on 4 April, 2019

In the case of S.B.P. & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd.(Supra), the Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Act was not an administrative order. It is passed in exercise of a judicial power. ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 03:56:09 ::: PDP 85 FB-JT-ABP-466-17, ABA-246-16 & ABA-300-18- The Supreme Court in para 47 of the said judgment observed thus:-
Bombay High Court Cites 100 - Cited by 11 - N H Patil - Full Document

M/S.S.B.P. & Co vs M/S. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr on 21 October, 2009

The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the writ petition filed by the petitioners noted that in view of the judgment of the larger Bench in S.B.P. & Company v. Patel 21 Engineering Ltd. and another (supra), a writ petition would not lie against an order made by the Chief Justice under Section 11 of the Act and an appeal could be filed only under Article 136 of the Constitution but proceeded to consider the issue raised by the writ petitioners on merits on the premise that appointments made on or before the judgment of the larger Bench had been saved. The Division Bench then observed that in terms of Section 15(2) of the Act, the Managing Director could, by relying upon the arbitration agreement, appoint another arbitrator because the original arbitrator had resigned. The Division Bench held that Section 15(2) of the Act is applicable not only to the cases of appointments under the statutory rules or rules framed under the Act but also the agreement between the parties for appointment of an arbitrator. While approving the decision of the High Court, this Court held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 14 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Suryakant vs Ravi Sharma on 5 October, 2007

6. Once the parties failed to appoint their Arbitrator within time, notice required to be given Under Section 11 forfeits their right to appoint Arbitrator of their choice and matter rests exclusively within the domain of Chief Justice or his designate authority, as the case may be. In the aforesaid circumstances, there being no dispute about existence of arbitration clause and existence of live dispute which was required to be referred to the Arbitrator in terms of agreement out of which the dispute has arisen. Accordingly, the application Under Section 11 deserves to be allowed which has been transmitted to this Court finding that learned District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the application in view of judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. [supra]. Even otherwise the claims pending before learned District Judge as designated authority are required to be transmitted to the High Court to be disposed of by Chief Justice or his designate authority, a sitting Judge of High Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Gtpl Hathway Ltd. vs Strategic Markering Pvt.Ltd. on 20 April, 2020

19. It would be apparent from a reading of these two provisions that an alternate remedy is avail­ able to the petitioner under Section 34 to set aside the arbitral award and to challenge the appealable orders by recourse to Section 37 thereof. The ques­ tion is whether these alternate remedies are not adequate and efficacious remedies available to the petitioner as to avail of the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No doubt to chal­ lenge an award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, an award must be passed by the learned Arbitrat­ or. It may appear at the first flush on a reading of Section 37 of the 1996 Act in particular that the impugned order is not capable of challenge there­ under. However considering the Full Bench judg­ ment of S.B.P. and Company (supra), it is always available to the petitioner to challenge the im­ pugned order while assailing the award under Sec­ tion 34 of the 1996 Act. Therefore, the contention of Shri Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Gov­ ernment Advocate that the remedy available under Section 34 and 37 of the 196 Act would not bar his remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution can­ not stand the test of scrutiny.
Gujarat High Court Cites 139 - Cited by 10 - B D Karia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next