Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.71 seconds)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs M/S Aksh Optifibre Limited on 23 February, 2026

In the case of ABB India Ltd. Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [2020 SCC OnLine Del 2070], arbitration was invoked on the basis of similar clause in the agreement between the parties and an Arbitrator was appointed prior to 23.10.2015. However, tenure of first Arbitrator was terminated and a new Arbitrator was appointed after 23.10.2015. This appointment of new substitute Arbitrator was challenged before Delhi High Court, on the grounds of being hit by S.12 of the amended Act. In the background of arbitration being initiated under the regime of law prior to the amendment w.e.f. 23.10.2015, Hon'ble Delhi High Court examined the law and various judgments given by Supreme Court, dealing with validity of arbitrator's appointment subsequent to amendment but in an arbitration-proceedings already initiated prior to 23.10.2015. Delhi High Court held that appointment of new Arbitrator was not vitiated on account of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act, as inserted by the 2015 Amendment Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

J.K Ghai vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd on 12 September, 2025

24. The question dealt in the case of ABB (supra) has direct bearing over the issue involved in the present case. If the appointment of subsequent Arbitrator in this case is not vitiated by S.12 (5) of the amended Act, then it cannot be said that Award in question is bad on the grounds of unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator. In that situation, decisions taken in the cases as cited by Petitioner, do not have any application in this case, because, it is the legal principle enunciated and explained in the judgments, which ARBTN No. 2535/2018 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.23 of 24 Patiala House Court, New Delhi becomes precedent, rather than peculiar decisions taken in those cases. Therefore, this objection against unilateral appointment of Arbitrator in this case, though not taken in the petition, but raised during the arguments of the Petitioner, is also liable to be rejected.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Suncity Distributors And Others vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd on 22 September, 2025

Delhi High Court has discussed most of the prominent judgments of Supreme Court, which were cited before me, in the case of ABB (supra). Hence, I am not required to give my interpretation of those judgments. In OMP (COMM) No.235/2019 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.32 of 39 Patiala House Court, New Delhi view of such legal position, I do not find any merit in the argument based on unilateral appointment of Arbitrator.
Delhi District Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1