Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing Banwari Lal Kotiya vs P.C. Aggarwal on 8 May, 1985

Chawla Techno Construct Limited vs The Embassy Of Italy on 6 May, 1999

19. I have gone through the judgment in Banwari Lal Kotiya Vs. P.C. Aggarwal (Supra). I am afraid the judgment does not support Mr.Sanghi. It was clearly observed in this case that where the parties by an agreement had agreed to submit present or future disputes to arbitration for adjudication to a named arbitrator, the party despite the Arbitration Act can straightway approach the arbitrator and resort to Section 20 is unnecessary because consent to such actual reference to arbitration shall be deemed to be there as this concept is included in the agreement signed by the parties and the aspect that differences or disputes actually arose subsequently would be inconsequential because the arbitration agreement as defined in Section 2(a) covers not merely present but future differences also. The Court in that case while referring to argument of unilateral reference held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S K Mahajan - Full Document

Sh. Deepak Duggal vs Sh. Subhash Chand Jian on 18 September, 2011

8. AIR 1985(3) SCC 255 Banwari Lal Kotiya v/s P.C. Aggarwal, there was a valid agreement between the parties containing the arbitration clause and the question was only with respect to the reference of the dispute to the arbitration for which Page 8 of 12 it was held that the fresh assent was not required to make an actual reference to arbitration. This is also not the situation in the instant case, since there is no dispute with respect to the invocation of subsequent assent for making actual reference to the Arbitrator but the agreement for reference of dispute to Arbitrator is itself in dispute.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Govind Prasad Agrawal vs Bhurelalji Agrawal And Ors. on 16 February, 1993

44. By reading provisison contained in Sections 2(a), 2(e), (9), 20 and rule 3 of schedule 1 of the Act, it is clear that if there be an "arbitration agreement" within the meaning of Sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Act, then reference under Section 2(e) of the Act can be unilateral also. This view is supported by the authority of Apex Court, reported in Banwarilal Kotiya v. P. C. Agarwal, AIR 1985 SC 1003.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document

M/S. J.N. Textiles vs M/S. Bon Chance & Anr. on 24 March, 2000

2. Yet an another decision of a learned Single Judge on this very point is to be found in Madan Mohan Rajgarhia Vs. M/s. Mahendra R. Shah & Anr., , Usha Mehra, J. held that the arbitration clause printed on the bill would be applicable even to a non-member. She had relied on the precedents reported as M/s. Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander and Bros. Vs. Sohan Lal, as well as Banwari Lal Kotiya Vs. P.C. Aggarwal, . The learned Judge observed as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - V Sen - Full Document

The Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply ... vs Union Of India, Through The General ... on 5 October, 2000

In Banwari Lal Kotiya v. P. C. Aggarwal, the Supreme Court set at rest a doubt which had arisen in the interpretation of its observations made in Thawardas Pherumal's case (supra) by saying, "..... These observations must be read in the proper perspective and not in a truncated manner or divorced from the context of specific issue which arose for determination before the Court in that case. So considered it will be clear that these were neither intended to apply generally to all references nor to lay down the wide proposition that there can be no reference to arbitration except through the Court under Sec. 20 unless both parties join in it."
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

State Of Anndhra Pradesh vs Chandrasekhara Reddy & Ors on 22 September, 1998

POINT No.2 So far as this point is concerned, Shri Raghuvir, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Banwari Lal Kotiva vs. P.C. Aggarwal [(1985) 3 SCC 255] that a reference to the newly appointed arbitrator had to be made after following the procedure laid down by preliminary specification no. 73. It is not necessary for us to closely examine this contention for the simple reason that this contention immediately raises a disputed question of fact as to whether Shri Nabi Saheb who was appointed as a substituted arbitrator vice the Superintending Engineer, Guntur, the sole arbitrator could have been required to be issued a fresh reference by the Superintending Engineer, Ongole. If the Superintending Engineer, Ongole, was not in charge of the work and if the contract work was done by Respondent No.1 under the supervision and jurisdiction of the Superintending Engineer, Guntur was substituted by Shri Nabi Saheb as the sole arbitrator, there would remain no occasion for requiring very same Nabi Saheb to refer the matter to himself for adjudication. Realising this difficulty, Shri Raghuvir, learned Senior Counsel for appellant, submitted that the reference of dispute was required to be made not by the Superintending Engineer, Guntur but by the Superintending Engineer, Ongole under whose jurisdiction the work had to be carried out. This contention was never raised either before the arbitrator or before the Trail Court or in any case before the High Court and it is too late now for the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant to raise this contention for the first time before us in these proceedings. But even that apart, the order of the Trail Court substituting Shri Nabi Saheb as the sole arbitrator in place of the Superintending Engineer, Guntur, as early as 1985, has become final. As we have noted earlier, the said decision dated 25.02.1985 has clearly directed the arbitrator to sign the copy of the minutes of the order and enter upon the reference in accordance with the agreement. Thus, the arbitrator got jurisdiction to enter upon the reference pursuant to the order of the court which has become final between the parties. Even on this ground, this contention about the requirement of further reference by the Superintending Engineer concerned does not survive for consideration. Point No.2 also fails and is rejected. These were the only contentions canvassed in support of the appeals and as there is no substance in either of them, the net result is that these appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed and the award passed by the arbitrator as made the rule of the court and as confirmed by the High Court would stand untouched. However, as a huge amount of public money was involved. through his counsel. It was recorded by an order of this Court dated 05.09.1997 which reads as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - M J Rao - Full Document

The General Manager (Telecom) vs Sesa Seat Information Systems Ltd on 25 August, 2005

In BANWARI LAL v. P.C. AGGARWAL, reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1003, while considering Arbitration Act, 1940, the Supreme Court has held that in our view resort to Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on the part of the appellant before approaching the Arbitrators for adjudication was unnecessary and the award was and is binding on the respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

The General Manager (Telecom) vs Sesa Seat Information Systems Ltd on 25 August, 2005

In BANWARI LAL v. P.C. AGGARWAL, reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1003, while considering Arbitration Act, 1940, the Supreme Court has held that in our view resort to Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on the part of the appellant before approaching the Arbitrators for adjudication was unnecessary and the award was and is binding on the respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

State Of Orissa Represented Through The ... vs Durga Charan Routray on 18 June, 2014

Mr. Routray in support of the aforesaid contention, placed reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banwari Lal Kotiya v. P.C. Aggarwal, 1985(3) S.C.C. 255 and the case of BSNL v. Subash Chandra Kanchan, (2006) 8 S.C.C. 279 and contended that, where a reference was consensual and the Arbitral Tribunal was opened on consent, it was no longer open to either party to contend that no such concession was made. He further submitted that the present objection of the State on the issue of jurisdiction of Arbitrator had been raised by the State before the High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same having been ultimately dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 31.07.2000, such an issue ought not to be permitted to be raised once again since raising of such issue would be barred by the principle of res judicata.
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - I Mahanty - Full Document
1   2 3 Next