Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (1.61 seconds)
Documents citing Shetty'S Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Konkan Railway Construction And Anr. on 2 April, 1998

Milkfood Ltd vs M/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2004

It is one thing to say that commencement of arbitration proceedings is dependent upon the fact of each case as that would be subject to the agreement between the parties. It is also another thing to say that the expression 'commencement of arbitration proceedings must be understood having regard to the context in which the same is used; but it would be a totally different thing to say that the arbitration proceedings commences only for the purpose of limitation upon issuance of a notice and for no other purpose. The statute does not say so. Even the case laws do not suggest the same. On the contrary the decisions of this Court operating in the field beginning from Shetty Construction (supra) are ad idem to the effect that Section 21 must be taken recourse to for the purpose of interpretation of Section 85(2)(a) of the Act. There is no reason, even if two views are possible to make a departure from the decisions of this Court as referred to hereinbefore.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 144 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Indian Institute Of Technology, Kanpur vs Anushree Constructors And Consultants ... on 11 August, 1999

29. Petitioner's contention .--The case of the petitioner is that arbitral proceedings commenced on 14th January, 1996 (when the letter from contractor for referring the dispute was admittedly received by the Director) in view of the decision in the case of Shetty's Construction (supra). Second limb of the argument is that there was no agreement for deciding the matter under New Act. In other words, Institute never gave 'No Objection' before the arbitrator to proceed under New Act. Hence said 'No Objection' cannot be treated as equated and within the meaning of expression 'any agreement to the contrary' used in Section 21 and Section 85(2)(a) of the New Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A K Yog - Full Document

M/S. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd vs Jindal Exports Ltd on 4 May, 2001

41. Again a bare reading of the Foreign Awards Act and the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 would show that these two enactments are concerned only with recognition and enforcement of the foreign awards and do not contain provisions for the conduct of arbitral proceedings which would, of necessity, have taken place in a foreign country. The provisions of Section 85(2)(a) insofar these apply to the foreign Awards Act and the 1937 Act, would appear to be quite superfluous. A literal interpretation would render section 85(2)(a) unworkable. Section 85(2)(a) provides for a dividing line dependent on commencement of arbitral proceedings, which expression would necessarily refer to Section 21 of the new Act. This Court has relied on this Section as to when arbitral proceedings commence in the case of Shettys Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Konkan Rly. Construction. Section 2(2) read with Section 2(7) and Section 21 falling in Part I of the new Act make it clear that these provisions would apply when the place of arbitration is in India, i.e., only in domestic proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 138 - S V Patil - Full Document

M/S.The Waterbase Ltd vs M/S.Kap (India) Projects & ... on 18 November, 2020

In Shetty's Constructions case, the point was, if a request was made prior to the date of 1996 A and C Act coming into force then the proceedings would be governed by 1940 Act. As already delineated supra, Hon'ble Arbitrator has noticed that the appointment of the Arbitrator by request has been made on 08.01.1996 prior to the coming http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.16/19 O.P.No.499 of 2020 into force of 1996 A and C Act on 26.01.1996. This puts an end to the chronicle.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

Andhra Pradesh Industrial ... vs Padmavathi Constructions And Another on 31 March, 2001

6. The finding of the learned single Judge to the effect that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 199,6 Act will apply, is unexceptionable in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Shetty Constructions Company Private Limited v. Konkan Railway Construction, 1998 (5) SCC 598 and in Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India, .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sri Venkateswara Construction Co. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 February, 2001

20. Now if we read Sections 11 and 16 of the New Act together, keeping in view the nature of the power conferred upon the Chief Justice under Section 11 of the New Act, it would be clear that the Chief Justice or his designate, while exercising his power under Section 11 of the New Act, cannot entertain or decide the issues like existence of an arbitration agreement, its validity or scope or the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide the disputes that are sought to be referred to his arbitration. The duty of the Chief Justice or his designate is only to appoint an Arbitrator/Arbitrators, if the parties fail to do so or if the person or institution empowered under the agreed procedure to make the appointment fails to do so, and leave all such questions to the decision of the Arbitrator/Arbitrators. This is what exactly the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., (supra) declared by holding thus : (Para 4) "When the matter is placed before the Chief Justice or his nominee under Section 11 of the Act it is imperative for the said chief Justice or his nominee to bear in mind the legislative intent that the arbitral process should be set in motion without any delay whatsoever and all contentious issues are left to be raised before, the arbitral tribunal itself. At that stage it would not be appropriate for the Chief Justice or his nominee to entertain any contentious issue between the parties and, decide the_ same. .......
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sridevi Constructions Co., Rep. By Its ... vs Commander Of Works Engineer And Chief ... on 17 June, 2004

In view of the clear language employed in Sections 21 and 85 of the new Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shetty's Constructions Limited(1 supra), it cannot be said that the two judgments referred to above have correctly stated the law. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the proceedings on hand are governed by the old Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - L N Reddy - Full Document

Continental Construction Ltd. vs Chief Engineer (Construction) N.E. ... on 26 November, 2001

17. Very close to the facts of the present case, is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SHETTY'S CONSTRUCTIONS CO. PVT. LTD. v. KONKAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION and Anr., . In the cited case before the Supreme Court, the claim has been laid by the Contractor for arbitration in March 1995. An arbitration suit even had been filed at Bombay on 24.8.1995. One of the controversies that come up before the Supreme Court was as to whether the matter would be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 or not. The Supreme Court held that if request was made in terms of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before coming into force of the said Act, the matter would be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940. The findings of the Supreme Court read:
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next