Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum ... vs Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & ... on 5 December, 1997

M/S. Pandit Munshi Ram & Associates ... vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr. on 11 August, 2000

In support of the submission, reliance was placed on the decisions in Nagin bhai C. Patel Vs. Union of India, 1999(2) Arb.LR 343(Bombay): B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd and another, 1998 (Suppl) Arb.LR 189; Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, 1999(2) Arb.LR 354 (Bombay); Jai Chand Bhasin Vs. Union of India and another, ; Prafulla Kumar Singh Deo Vs. State of Orissa and others, ; Major (Retd) Inder Singh Rekhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority, ; Union of India and another Vs. M/s. L.K. Ahuja and Co., and G. Ramachandra Reddy and Co. Vs. Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Service, .
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - K S Gupta - Full Document

Universal Construction And Trading ... vs Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. And Ors. on 8 October, 2003

In B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., 1998 (Suppl) Arbi LR 189, it was held that the provisions of Sections 11(6) and (8) give wider jurisdiction to the Chief Justice than the provisions of Section 8 of the repealed Arbitration Act. In the aforesaid case the Court held that when the notice was given to the opposite contracting party to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the contract and if no action had been taken, it must be deemed that he neglected to act upon the contract and the Court gets jurisdiction and power to appoint an Arbitrator.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Naginbhai C. Patel vs Union Of India on 23 December, 1998

That being so, this application has become infructuous. Second, on the failure of the authority to appoint an arbitrator under the procedure set out in the arbitration agreement, the Chief Justice or the person designated by him cannot appoint the arbitrator itself. It can only direct the appointing authority to act under the procedure and to appoint an arbitrator. So far as the second ground is concerned, it has been held by the Chief Justice M.S. Shah of this Court (as His Lordship then was) in B.T. Patil & Sons v. Konkan Railway Corpn., and by me in Arbitration Petition No. 161 of 1998 Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Konkan Railway Corpn., in judgment dated 23rd December, 1998 , that the Chief Justice or any person designated by him has to make the appointment himself. It has been categorically held that the expression "to take the necessary measures" in sub-section (6) of section 11 intended to mean that the Chief Justice or the person designated by him should make the appointment himself having regard for considerations likely to secure an independent and impartial arbitrator and not merely order the recalcitrant party or appointing authority to act. The second ground of opposition to appointment of arbitrator in this case is thus squarely covered by the above decisions against the respondents.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. vs M/S. Jindal Exports Ltd. on 19 February, 1999

15. Having decided so let me now deal with the other objection raised by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the petition. It was submitted that to the facts and circumstances of the present case the provisions of the new Arbitration Act of 1996 are not applicable and that the arbitration in the present proceedings are governed within the scope and ambit of the repeal and saving clause. Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides that by virtue of the said provisions of Section 85 the FARE Act of 1961 and the Arbitration Act of 1940 are repealed. It further provides that notwithstanding the aforesaid repeal the provisions of the said enactments including the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the FARE Act would apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced before the new Act came into force unless otherwise agreed by the parties. However, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced on or after the new Act came into force. The vital and relevant consideration, therefore, is as to whether the arbitral proceedings in the present case commenced before coming into force of the new Act. It has been held by the Supreme Curt in the decision of Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Konkan Railway Construction, that the new Act came into force on 26.1.1996. It was stated in the said decision as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

J.L. Prasad vs The General Manager, Southern Railway, ... on 28 September, 2001

13. Learned Counsel for petitioner relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Deepak Galvanizing and Engineering Industries Private Limited v. Government of India, the decision of the Delhi High Court in Nucon India (Private) Limited v. Delhi Vidyut Board (DESU) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in B.T. Patil and Sons v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited . The decisions of Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts hold that where the party who is called upon to appointed an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement, fails to do so, such party cannot subsequently contend that the arbitrator should be appoint only in terms of the appointment procedure and such a party should be deemed to have waived and forfeited its right to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration procedure; and consequently, the Court, exercising power under Section 11 of the Act can appoint an independent arbitrator of its choice to decide the dispute between the parties.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1