Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 81 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Sp Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 December, 2018

Avneet Soni vs Kavita Agarwal on 28 January, 2026

61. A similar position was reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in S.P. Singla Constructions (P) Ltd. v. State of H.P.34, wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with an appointment made prior to the 2015 Amendment Act, held that the amended provisions could not be invoked to invalidate an appointment made in accordance with the contractual terms governing the parties prior to 23.10.2015. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further reaffirmed that departmental or unilateral appointments made under pre-amendment agreements cannot be retrospectively invalidated by invoking the 2015 Amendment Act. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sri Krishna Shelters Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 19 September, 2019

33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Act, about the impermissibility of an arbitrator, when an arbitrator is already appointed by one of the parties to the agreement in terms of arbitration agreement in the case of S.P.Singla Constructions Private Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, (2019) 2 SCC 488 at para, 18, 19 and 20 held as under;
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - B Veerappa - Full Document

Royale Meridian (India) Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Mbl Infrastructure Ltd on 27 November, 2020

12.9 It is also reiterated that the appointment having been made by the Director of the company would not make such appointment bad in law. In the present case an independent Arbitrator as Retired ASJ has been appointed Sole Arbitrator and the Arbitrator so appointed by the respondent is not ineligible as having no connection in the present case or with the parties in terms of Schedule 5 and 7. Therefore, there is no de­jure ineligibility in the appointment of Sole Arbitrator. Reliance has been placed upon the case of "S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors [2019(2) SCC 488]" wherein it was held that :­ "11. Likewise, there is no merit in the OMP (T) (Comm) No. 5/20 Royale Meridian (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s MBL Infrastructure Ltd. Page 13 of 48 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court) /SE/Saket/ND/27.11.2020 contention of the appellant­ contractor that the appointed arbitrator is an employee in service of the HPPWD which the provision of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act (as amended w.e.f. 23.10.2015) bars at the threshold itself. In a catena of judgments, the Supreme Court held that arbitration clauses in government contracts providing that an employee of the department will be the sole arbitrator are neither void nor unenforceable.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

South Bihar Power Distribution Company ... vs Bhagalpur Electricity Distribution ... on 26 April, 2023

43. The learned counsel for the SPML further submitted that once an Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the agreement, the provisions of sub-section 6 of Section 11 cannot be invoked again and the remedy of the aggrieved party is by way of petition under Section 13 and, thereafter, challenging the award under Section 34 of the Act. On this aspect, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 488 (Para 1, 4, 14, 18, 19, 20 & 21).
Patna High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

M/S Shree Vishnu Constructions vs The Engineer In Chief Military ... on 9 May, 2023

In our considered view, the applications/requests made by the respondent contractors deserve to be examined in accordance with the principal Act, 1996 without taking resort to the 2015 Amendment Act which came into force from 23-10-2015.” In the case of Parmar Construction Company (supra), this Court heavily relied upon para 16 of the decision in the case of S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - M R Shah - Full Document

At Hospet Sold 32 Units Of Ex7 vs Themselves Acknowledge The ... on 30 August, 2021

(o) It is to be noted that, the above-mentioned two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied on by the Advocate for the Defendant, i.e., (2019) 3 - S.C.C. - 282 (Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited vs. M/s Ganesh Containers Movers Syndicate), and 2019(2) - S.C.C. - 488 (SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh), which were rendered by two Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.01.2019 and 32 Com.AS.No.50/2015 04.12.2018 respectively.
Bangalore District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

806 New Delhi House vs Vestas Rrb India Ltd

34. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.SINGLA CONSTRCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER {(2019) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 488}, wherein, it has held that Section 12 (5) of the Act was amended with effect from 23/10/2005 cannot have retrospective operation in arbitral proceedings already commenced unless parties otherwise agree.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

South Bihar Power Distribution Co. ... vs S P M L Infra Ltd. And Anr on 26 April, 2023

43. The learned counsel for the SPML further submitted that once an Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the agreement, the provisions of sub-section 6 of Section 11 cannot be invoked again and the remedy of the aggrieved party is by way of petition under Section 13 and, thereafter, challenging the award under Section 34 of the Act. On this aspect, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 488 (Para 1, 4, 14, 18, 19, 20 & 21).
Patna High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

South Bihar Power Distribution Company ... vs Bhagalpur Electricity Distribution ... on 26 April, 2023

43. The learned counsel for the SPML further submitted that once an Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the agreement, the provisions of sub-section 6 of Section 11 cannot be invoked again and the remedy of the aggrieved party is by way of petition under Section 13 and, thereafter, challenging the award under Section 34 of the Act. On this aspect, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 488 (Para 1, 4, 14, 18, 19, 20 & 21).
Patna High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next