Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Kiran Construction Co. And Anr. on 27 September, 2002

Wipra Finance Ltd. vs Srg Infotech (India ) Ltd. And Anr. on 5 December, 2005

In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Kiran Construction Co. (supra) the Court was dealing with the maintainability of writ petition filed against the order of appointment of the arbitrator passed by the Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11(6) of the Act. Moreover, para 5 of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, in fact, contains the submissions of the learned counsel and not the observation of the Court. Furthermore, in that case the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appointment was valid as the respondent had not acted and nominated an arbitrator in spite of notice issued and thus, in that case the party had approached the Chief Justice Page 2450 only after following the procedure. That can be clearly noticed from the reading of paras 14 and 18 of that judgment.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates Pvt. Ltd vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 2 July, 2009

14. Though as aforesaid no judgments on this aspect were cited but I find that an argument in this regard was raised before the Division Bench of this court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kiran Construction Co. 102 (2003) DLT 908 DB. In that case the agreement between the parties was for arbitration of the Managing Director, Marketing Division of the Indian Oil Corporation and if such Managing Director was unable or unwilling to act as the Sole Arbitrator, of arbitration by some other person designated by such Managing Director in his place. The respondent in that case approached the Managing Director for arbitration. Upon the Managing Director maintaining silence, an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act was filed. During the pendency of the said application the Managing Director appointed the Dy. General AA 428 & AA 429/2008 Page 8 of 13 Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation as the Arbitrator and the said person entered upon reference. The factum of appointment was brought to the notice of the court where Section 11(6) was pending. However, the court held that since the appointment had been made after the expiry of 30 days hence the Managing Director of the Indian Oil Corporation had lost the right to appoint an Arbitrator and a retired judge of this court was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. A writ petition was preferred to the Division Bench against the said order. It was the contention of the counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation before the Division Bench that the court could exercise jurisdiction of appointing an Arbitrator only if the procedure had not been prescribed in the agreement itself or when there was a default in complying with the agreed procedure; however when the agreement is of a named Arbitrator, Chief Justice or his designate could only secure the appointment of the person so named and since the named person had entered upon reference during the pendency of application under Section 11(6) of the Act, Chief Justice or his nominee would not do anything more except to uphold his appointment. It was further contended that even if the Arbitrator had not been named, the Chief Justice was not vested with any power to appoint an independent Arbitrator because that would be in violation of the procedure agreed by the two parties.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates Pvt. Ltd vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 2 July, 2009

14. Though as aforesaid no judgments on this aspect were cited but I find that an argument in this regard was raised before the Division Bench of this court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kiran Construction Co. 102 (2003) DLT 908 DB. In that case the agreement between the parties was for arbitration of the Managing Director, Marketing Division of the Indian Oil Corporation and if such Managing Director was unable or unwilling to act as the Sole Arbitrator, of arbitration by some other person designated by such Managing Director in his place. The respondent in that case approached the Managing Director for arbitration. Upon the Managing Director maintaining silence, an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act was filed. During the pendency of the said application the Managing Director appointed the Dy. General AA 428 & AA 429/2008 Page 8 of 13 Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation as the Arbitrator and the said person entered upon reference. The factum of appointment was brought to the notice of the court where Section 11(6) was pending. However, the court held that since the appointment had been made after the expiry of 30 days hence the Managing Director of the Indian Oil Corporation had lost the right to appoint an Arbitrator and a retired judge of this court was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. A writ petition was preferred to the Division Bench against the said order. It was the contention of the counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation before the Division Bench that the court could exercise jurisdiction of appointing an Arbitrator only if the procedure had not been prescribed in the agreement itself or when there was a default in complying with the agreed procedure; however when the agreement is of a named Arbitrator, Chief Justice or his designate could only secure the appointment of the person so named and since the named person had entered upon reference during the pendency of application under Section 11(6) of the Act, Chief Justice or his nominee would not do anything more except to uphold his appointment. It was further contended that even if the Arbitrator had not been named, the Chief Justice was not vested with any power to appoint an independent Arbitrator because that would be in violation of the procedure agreed by the two parties.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1