Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Pricol Limited vs Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd & Ors on 16 December, 2014

Globe Ground India Private Limited vs Airports Authority Of India on 29 April, 2024

It was observed : (TRF case [TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 377 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 72] , SCC p. 397, paras 32-33) “32.Mr Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has also drawn inspiration from the judgment passed by the Designated Judge of this Court in Walter Bau AG [Walter Bau AG v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, (2015) 3 SCC 800 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 450] , where the learned Judge, after referring to Antrix Corpn. Ltd. [Antrix Corpn. Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 560 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 147] , distinguished the same and also distinguished the authority in Pricol Ltd. v. Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd. [Pricol Ltd. v. Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd., (2015) 4 SCC 177 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 530] and came to hold that : (Walter Bau AG Page 69 of 93 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.No.312 of 2023 case [Walter Bau AG v. Municipal Corpn.
Madras High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

1. Pradeep Transcore Private Limited ... vs Tbea Energy India Private Limited ... on 30 April, 2021

13. Now, let us examine as to whether the appointment of the Arbitrator made by the respondent could be said to be invalid or nonest so as to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act. In the instant case, it transpires that none of the parties had disputed about the existence of the Arbitration Clause No. 18 contained in their respective agreements relied upon by them. The petitioner relies upon the Clause­18 as contained in the agreement dated 06.02.219 signed on 10.07.2019, and the respondent relies upon the identically worded Clause­18 contained in the agreement dated 22.10.20198 allegedly signed on 07.11.2019. As stated earlier, the petitioner's legal representative Mr.Pathan having twice called upon the respondent vide Notice dated 21.7.2020 and 28.8.2020 to appoint an Arbitrator as per Article 18 of the MOU dated 6.2.2019, and the respondent having appointed the Sole Arbitrator Mr. Justice Deepak Verma after giving due Notice dated 20.8.2020, it could not be said that the appointment made by the respondent was without following the agreed procedure Page 20 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 30 22:44:34 IST 2021 C/IAAP/70/2020 CAV JUDGMENT and therefore was nonest in the eye of law. It may be noted that the Sole Arbitrator was appointed within the knowledge of the petitioner and the arbitration proceedings had also been initiated by the said Sole Arbitrator, and therefore the only course open for the petitioner was to approach the Court under Section 13 of the said Act, challenging the procedure/appointment of the Arbitrator. Beneficial reference of the decisions in case of Antrix Corporation Limited vs. Devas Mulitmedia Private Limited reported in (2014) 11 SCC 560 and in case of Pricol Ltd. v. Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 177 be made in this regard. It is also a well settled legal position of law that in view of Section 16 of the said Act, the arbitral Tribunal is empowered to rule on its own jurisdiction, including to rule on any objection with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Rspl Limited Through Shri Harish ... vs Simplex Infrastructure Ltd on 7 May, 2021

In Pricol Ltd. (supra), the appointment of the Arbitrator was sought under the Joint Venture Agreement entered into between the parties, after the respondent had invoked the concerned arbitration clause and moved the Singapore International Arbitration Centre for the appointment of an Arbitrator. During the pendency of the said application under Section 11(6) of the said Act filed by the petitioner, the said authority i.e. SIAC appointed an Arbitrator under the provisions contained in the Singapore International Arbitration Act. The Sole Arbitrator after the preliminary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction passed a partial award holding that the appointment was valid. In the backdrop of such facts, the Supreme Court did not entertain the petitioner's petition under Section 11 (6) of the said Act by holding as under:­ Page 25 of 32 Downloaded on : Sat May 08 00:20:07 IST 2021 C/IAAP/51/2020 CAV JUDGMENT "11. From the relevant facts of the case, it is also clear that the respondents at one time had suggested the name of a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India as the sole Arbitrator, which was not agreed to by the petitioner, who in turn, was inclined to nominate another learned judge. Be that as it may, in such a situation, the respondents by invoking Arbitration clause 30.2 had approached SIAC for appointment of an Arbitrator. This was on 5th September, 2014 i.e. before the present proceeding was instituted by the petitioner. Though the notice of the said request was served on the petitioner on 11th September, 2014, no steps were taken by the petitioner to pre­ empt the appointment of a sole Arbitrator by SIAC. Mr. Steven Y.H. Lim came to be appointed as the sole Arbitrator by the SIAC on 29th September, 2014. The petitioner has submitted to the jurisdiction of Mr. Steven Y.H. Lim. Even if it is held that such participation, being under protest, would not operate as an estoppel, what must be acknowledged is that the appointment of the sole Arbitrator made by SIAC and the partial award on the issue of jurisdiction cannot be questioned and examined in a proceeding under Section 11(6) of the Act which empowers the Chief Justice or his nominee only to appoint an Arbitrator in case the parties fail to do so in accordance with the terms agreed upon by them. To exercise the said power, in the facts and events that has taken place, would really amount to sitting in appeal over the decision of SIAC in appointing Mr. Lim as well as the partial award dated 27th November, 2014 passed by him acting as the sole Arbitrator.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Escort Security And Personnel Services vs Deendayal Port Trust on 30 April, 2021

27. It may be noted here that the aforesaid view of the Designated Judge in Walter Bau AG3 was pressed into service on behalf of the appellant in TRF Limited4 and the opinion expressed by the Designated Judge was found to be in consonance with the binding authorities of this Court. It was observed:­ "32. Mr Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has also drawn inspiration from the judgment passed by the Designated Judge of this Court in Walter Bau AG3, where the learned Judge, after referring to Antrix Corpn. Ltd., distinguished the same and also distinguished the authority in Pricol Ltd. v. Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd. and came to hold that: (Walter Bau AG case3, SCC p. 806, para 10) "10. Unless the appointment of the arbitrator is ex facie valid and such appointment satisfies the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, acceptance of such appointment as a fait accompli to debar the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) cannot be countenanced in law. ..."
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

M/S Ketan Construction Company vs M/S Alpha Corp Development Private ... on 28 July, 2022

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Walter Bau AG Legal Successor vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. (2015) 3 SCC 800 had made a reference to Antrix Corporation Ltd. vs. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 11 SCC 560 and Pricol Ltd. Vs. Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd. (2015) 4 SCC 177 and had observed that after the appointment of the Arbitrator is made, remedy of the aggrieved party is not under Section 11(6), but the remedy lies elsewhere and under different provision of the Act (Section 12 & 13).
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

M/S. Lanco Infratech Limited vs M/S. Hindustan Construction Company ... on 19 January, 2015

In a preliminary meeting between the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator held on 30th October, 2014, it was indicated by the petitioner that it would be challenging the jurisdiction of the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the SIAC. Accordingly, on the directions of the learned Sole Arbitrator, there has been an exchange of written submissions on the issue of jurisdiction. The Sole Arbitrator has ruled that the appointment made by the SIAC under IAA is valid as the parties had expressly stated that the Singapore would be the seat of arbitration. The Supreme Court in para 9 of Pricol Limited (supra), has held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Walter Bau Ag, Legal Successor, Of The ... vs Municipal Corp. Of Greater Mumbai And ... on 20 January, 2015

8. While it is correct that in Antrix (supra) and Pricol Limited (supra), it was opined by this Court that after appointment of an Arbitrator is made, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not under Section 11(6) but such remedy lies elsewhere and under different provisions of the Arbitration Act (Sections 12 and 13), the context in which the aforesaid view was expressed cannot be lost sight of. In Antrix (supra), appointment of the Arbitrator, as per ICC Rules, was as per the alternative procedure agreed upon, whereas in Pricol Limited (supra), the party which had filed the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act had already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. In the present case, the situation is otherwise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 35 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Trf Ltd vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd on 3 July, 2017

34. Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the appellant has also drawn inspiration from the judgment passed by the designated Judge of this Court in Walter Bau AG (supra), where the learned Judge, after referring to Antrix Corporation Limited (supra), distinguished the same and 39 also distinguished the authority in Pricol Limited v. Johnson Controls Enterprise Limited15 and came to hold that:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 49 - Cited by 374 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next