Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 601 (5.59 seconds)
Documents citing Datar Switchgears Ltd vs Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr on 18 October, 2000

M/S Padmavathy Builders And Developers vs Union Of India on 14 September, 2022

14. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Punj Lloyd Ltd. (appellant) v. Petronet MHB Ltd. (2006) 2 SCC 638 considered the applicability of Section 11(6) petition and considered the facts which are similar to the facts of the present case and held that once notice period of 30 days had lapsed, and the party had moved the Chief Justice under Section 11(6), the other party having right to appoint arbitrator under arbitral agreement loses the right to do so. While taking this view, the Court had referred 29 to the judgment rendered in Datar Switchgears Ltd. (appellant) v. Tata Finance Ltd. and Another (2000) 8 SCC 151 wherein at page 158 (para 19) SCC, this Court held as under: "19. So far as cases falling under Section 11(6) are concerned - such as the one before us no time limit has been prescribed under the Act, whereas a period of 30 days has been prescribed under Section 11(4) and Section 11(5) of the Act. In our view, therefore, so far as Section 11(6) is concerned, if one party demands the opposite party to appoint an arbitrator and the opposite party does not make an appointment within 30 days of the demand, the right to appointment does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days. If the opposite party makes an appointment even after 30 days of the demand, but before the first party has moved the court under Section 11, that would be sufficient. In other words, in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within 30 days of demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but an appointment has to be made before the former files application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. Only then the right of the opposite party ceases. We do not, therefore, agree with the observation in the above judgments that if the appointment is not made within 30 days of demand, the right to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) is forfeited."
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S Krishi Infratech vs Union Of India on 10 August, 2022

In Datar Switchgears [Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd., (2000) 8 SCC 151] (SCC p. 158, para 19), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the scheme of Section 11, noted the distinguishing features between Section 11(5) and 33 Section 11(6) and then considered the question whether in a case falling under Section 11(6), the opposite party cannot appoint an arbitrator after the expiry of thirty days from the date of demand. This Court held that in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within thirty days of the demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but such an appointment has to be made before the first party makes application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. If no appointment has been made by the opposite party till application under Section 11(6) has been made, the right of the opposite party to make appointment ceases and is forfeited.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S Krishi Infratech vs The Union Of India on 10 August, 2022

In Datar Switchgears [Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd., (2000) 8 SCC 151] (SCC p. 158, para 19), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the scheme of Section 11, noted the distinguishing features between Section 11(5) and 33 Section 11(6) and then considered the question whether in a case falling under Section 11(6), the opposite party cannot appoint an arbitrator after the expiry of thirty days from the date of demand. This Court held that in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within thirty days of the demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but such an appointment has to be made before the first party makes application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. If no appointment has been made by the opposite party till application under Section 11(6) has been made, the right of the opposite party to make appointment ceases and is forfeited.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S Global Agency vs The Union Of India on 17 August, 2022

14. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Punj Lloyd Ltd. (appellant) v. Petronet MHB Ltd. (2006) 2 SCC 638 considered the applicability of Section 11(6) petition and considered the facts which are similar to the facts of the present case and held that 29 once notice period of 30 days had lapsed, and the party had moved the Chief Justice under Section 11(6), the other party having right to appoint arbitrator under arbitral agreement loses the right to do so. While taking this view, the Court had referred to the judgment rendered in Datar Switchgears Ltd. (appellant) v. Tata Finance Ltd. and Another (2000) 8 SCC 151 wherein at page 158 (para 19) SCC, this Court held as under: "19. So far as cases falling under Section 11(6) are concerned - such as the one before us no time limit has been prescribed under the Act, whereas a period of 30 days has been prescribed under Section 11(4) and Section 11(5) of the Act. In our view, therefore, so far as Section 11(6) is concerned, if one party demands the opposite party to appoint an arbitrator and the opposite party does not make an appointment within 30 days of the demand, the right to appointment does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days. If the opposite party makes an appointment even after 30 days of the demand, but before the first party has moved the court under Section 11, that would be sufficient. In other words, in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within 30 days of demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but an appointment has to be made before the former files application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. Only then the right of the opposite party ceases. We do not, 30 therefore, agree with the observation in the above judgments that if the appointment is not made within 30 days of demand, the right to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) is forfeited."
Karnataka High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Sri G Koteshwararao vs Union Of India on 10 August, 2022

In Datar Switchgears [Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd., (2000) 8 SCC 151] (SCC p. 158, para 19), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the scheme of Section 11, noted the distinguishing features between Section 11(5) and Section 11(6) and then considered the question whether in a case falling under Section 11(6), the opposite party cannot appoint an arbitrator after the expiry of thirty days from the date of demand. This Court held that in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within thirty days of the demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but such an appointment has to be made before the first party makes application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. If no appointment has been made by the opposite party till application under Section 11(6) has been made, the right of the opposite party to make appointment ceases and is forfeited.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S Swarna Techno Constructions Pvt. ... vs The Union Of India on 8 February, 2023

In Datar Switchgears [Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd., (2000) 8 SCC 151] (SCC p. 158, para 19), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the scheme of Section 11, noted the distinguishing features between Section 11(5) and Section 11(6) and then considered the question whether in a case falling under Section 11(6), the opposite party cannot appoint an arbitrator after the expiry of thirty days from the date of demand. This Court held that in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within thirty days of the demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but such an appointment has to be made before the first party makes application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. If no appointment has been made by the opposite party till application under Section 11(6) has been made, the right of the opposite party to make appointment ceases and is forfeited.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S Narayani Constructions vs Union Of India on 22 July, 2022

In Datar Switchgears [Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd., (2000) 8 SCC 151] (SCC p. 158, para 19), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the scheme of Section 11, noted the distinguishing features between Section 11(5) and Section 11(6) and then considered the question whether in a case falling under Section 11(6), the opposite party cannot appoint an arbitrator after the expiry of thirty days from the date of demand. This Court held that in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within thirty days of the demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but such an appointment has to be made before the first party makes application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. If no appointment has been made by the opposite party till application under Section 11(6) has been made, the right of the opposite party to make appointment ceases and is forfeited.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S M V V Satyanarayana vs Union Of India on 9 September, 2022

In Datar Switchgears [Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd., (2000) 8 SCC 151] (SCC p. 158, para 19), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the scheme of Section 11, noted the distinguishing features between Section 11(5) and Section 11(6) and then considered the question whether in a case falling under Section 11(6), the opposite party cannot appoint an arbitrator after the expiry of thirty days from the date of demand. This Court held that in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within thirty days of the demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but such an appointment has to be made before the first party 33 makes application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. If no appointment has been made by the opposite party till application under Section 11(6) has been made, the right of the opposite party to make appointment ceases and is forfeited.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S.Navkar Corporation Limited vs Divisional Railway Manager on 9 December, 2013

19. If we apply the legal position exposited by this Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. and Anr. MANU/SC/0651/2000 : (2000) 8 SCC 151 to the admitted facts, it will be seen that the Corporation has forfeited its right to appoint the arbitrator. It is so for the reason that on 09.08.2004, the dealer called upon the Corporation to appoint the arbitrator in accordance with terms of Clause 29 of the agreement but that was not done till the dealer had made application under Section 11(6) to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for appointment of the arbitrator. The appointment was made by the Corporation only during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 11(6). Such appointment by the Corporation after forfeiture of its right is of no consequence and has not disentitled the dealer to seek appointment of the arbitrator by the Chief Justice under Section 11(6). We answer the above questions accordingly.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next