Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Mcleod Russel India Limited & Anr vs Aditya Birla Finance Limited & Ors on 14 February, 2023

Anuj Kumar vs M/S Franchise India Brands Limited on 24 April, 2023

28. The ratio of Mc Leod Russel India Limited and Anr. v. Aditya Birla Finance Limited (Supra) is that when there is a unilateral appointment it has to be seen as per the facts and circumstances of the case. Mere unilateral appointment cannot nullify the appointment of the arbitrator. The Court held there is a difference between the fact that when one of the manager or key managerial personnel of one of the parties is appointed as the arbitrator and when one of such personnel of one of the party appoints an arbitrator unilaterally. Moreover, in the second situation where one of the party unilaterally appoints the arbitrator, the irregularity can be waived by way of an express agreement as per the proviso under Section 12 (5) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Sattar Ali Khan vs Yes Bank Ltd on 9 May, 2023

56. Further, as held in the judgment Mcleod Russel India Limited (supra), paragraph 21 of Perkins clubs all unilateral appointments by one of the parties to an arbitra- tion as falling within the statutory bar of section 12 (5) but without reference to the 7th schedule. This would be clear from the reliance placed by the Court on TRF which was specifically a case under Section 12 (5) read with the 7thSchedule. Therefore, Perkins amplifies and extends the disqualification under Section 12 (5) to all unilateral ap- pointments divorced from any of the categories specified in the 7thSchedule. Perkins also proceeded on the ratio of TRF namely whether the Managing Director, after becoming in- eligible by operation, is still eligible to nominate an arbitra- tor. The absence of any issue with regard to an express writ- ten agreement under the proviso to Section 12 (5) in Perkins amounts to a crucial difference in facts.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sonu Tyagi vs Sony India Private Limited on 18 May, 2023

16. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the claimant/respondent that this plea of unilateral appointment cannot be taken as not mentioned in the grounds of the petition U/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is not at all tenable firstly the impugned award is passed by the Arbitrator who is de-jure ineligible, secondly in this case the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is already challenged during the arbitration proceedings. Even otherwise, there is no estoppel against the law. Ld. Counsel also submits OMP (COMM) 112/19 Sonu Tyagi Proprietor, Tirupati Enterprises dt 18.05.2023 Page 39 of 40 Vs. Sony India Private Limited that this plea is also not tenable as the petitioners already participated in the proceedings, relied upon Kanodia Infratech Limited (Supra) and McLeod Russel India Limited and Ors. (Supra), however, both these judgments are not applicable in present case as the petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator at initial stage and thereafter not participated in the proceedings. Even otherwise, these contentions cannot be appreciated as award is void ab nitio, not a legal decree and deadwood.
Delhi District Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Senvisage vs M/S Sak Buildtech Pvt Ltd And Ors on 12 February, 2024

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents referred to the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in McLeod Russel India Ltd. & Anr. v. Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. & Ors.: 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 330 and submitted that the unilateral appointment could not be challenged as the respondents had participated in the arbitral proceedings.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Ms.Amirthaa vs M/S.Karismaa Foundations Private ... on 21 March, 2024

7. The learned counsel for the first respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in McLeod Russel India Limited and another Vs. Aditya Birla Finance Limited and others, 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.477 of 2023 2023 SCC Online Cal 330. Specifically, a reference was made to Paragraph 45 from the said decision. It reads as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

M/S Anuni Infrastructures vs M/S Volvo Financial Services India ... on 22 January, 2024

19. The Respondent No.1 has relied upon a decision reported in 2023 - SCC - CAL 330 (McLeod Russal India Limited and others vs. Aditya Birla Finance Limited and others) the Hon'ble High court of Calcutta held that "The ratio of TRF, Bharat Broadband and Perkins is therefore essentially that of an arbitrator who becomes ineligible by a statutory bar and consequently renders himself ineligible to nominate someone else to act as the arbitrator. The logic is that a disqualified person cannot delegate his position to another as that would amount to arbitration by the disqualified arbitrator himself. Hence, once the MD loses his position/identity as a sole arbitrator, the MD's right to nominate is automatically wiped out - TRF and Perkins".
Bangalore District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Airports Authority Of India on 24 December, 2024

89. A reference be also made to McLeod Russel India Limited (supra), by the Calcutta High Court which in the similar facts as under consideration, has taken a view otherwise. It has been observed that such expression of submitting to the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, or to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in the Statement of Claims, was an express consent in writing. Reference was made to Section 9 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which contemplates that the acceptance made any promise, if made in words, is said to be an express consent. It was further observed that the parties had exchanged their respective Statement of Claim and Statement of Defence/Affidavit in Arbitration proceedings and had filed various Applications and Replies thereto, which is sufficient to constitute an express agreement in writing to the appointment of an Arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Airports Authority Of India vs Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... on 24 December, 2024

89. A reference be also made to McLeod Russel India Limited (supra), by the Calcutta High Court which in the similar facts as under consideration, has taken a view otherwise. It has been observed that such expression of submitting to the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, or to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in the Statement of Claims, was an express consent in writing. Reference was made to Section 9 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which contemplates that the acceptance made any promise, if made in words, is said to be an express consent. It was further observed that the parties had exchanged their respective Statement of Claim and Statement of Defence/Affidavit in Arbitration proceedings and had filed various Applications and Replies thereto, which is sufficient to constitute an express agreement in writing to the appointment of an Arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Airports Authority Of India on 24 December, 2024

89. A reference be also made to McLeod Russel India Limited (supra), by the Calcutta High Court which in the similar facts as under consideration, has taken a view otherwise. It has been observed that such expression of submitting to the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, or to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in the Statement of Claims, was an express consent in writing. Reference was made to Section 9 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which contemplates that the acceptance made any promise, if made in words, is said to be an express consent. It was further observed that the parties had exchanged their respective Statement of Claim and Statement of Defence/Affidavit in Arbitration proceedings and had filed various Applications and Replies thereto, which is sufficient to constitute an express agreement in writing to the appointment of an Arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document
1   2 Next