Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 400 (5.43 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 30 September, 2016

A Joint Venture Of M/S China Civil ... vs Gujarat Metro Rail Corporation Limited on 17 January, 2020

The Court is of the view that this submission would not be tenable in eye of law as the facts in case of Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh Vs. Delhi Mrtro Rail Corporation Limited (supra) would indicate that the panel of 31 arbitrators was already in existence and known to all the parties when the contract was being executed. As against that, in the instant case, as it is submitted by the petitioner and not controverted by the respondent that for the first time the five names in the panel were disclosed in the reply affidavit in the present proceedings by the respondent and therefore it can well be said that the parties were not ad idem when the contract was being executed qua the selection of panel or selection of arbitrators for adjudicating the dispute under the Page 33 of 36 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:46:39 IST 2020 C/IAAP/119/2019 ORDER provision of Arbitration Act and one need not loose sight of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner also invited Court's attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, wherein the Court did observe that apart from serving and retired engineers of Government Departments, the prominent and reputed engineers of private sector should be included and the persons with legal background like Judges and Lawyers of repute be included, as it is not always that the dispute would contain only technical aspect. Thus, the Supreme Court did advert to the requirement of neutrality and independence of the arbitrators.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Rajkumar Tamotia vs Alok Sharma on 22 May, 2024

29. Having regard to the above statutory position it would be necessary to consider the judgments cited. The first in this series would be Voestalpine Schienen GMBH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,19 where taking note of the amendment made to the Act in 2015, the Court underlined that it was with the objective to induce neutrality of arbitrators especially their independence and impartiality that the amendment act of 2015 20 was introduced. The amended provision was enacted to identify the circumstances that gave rise to justifiable doubts about the independence or impartiality of the arbitrator and in the event, any of those circumstances exist, the remedy provided is under Section 12. The court particularly underlined Section 12(5) which nullified prior agreements to the contrary. In the facts of that case, it was held that if an advisor had any past or present business relationship with a party, he was ineligible to act as arbitrator.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Bansal Construction Office vs Yamuna Expressway Industrial ... on 4 August, 2023

In paras 16 to 18 it is observed and held as under : (Voestalpine Schienen GmbH case [Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 4 SCC 665 : (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 607] , SCC pp. 679-83) '16. Apart from other amendments, Section 12 was also amended and the amended provision has already been reproduced above. This amendment is also based on the recommendation of the Law Commission which specifically dealt with the issue of "neutrality of arbitrators" and a discussion in this behalf is contained in paras 53 to 60 and we would like to reproduce the entire discussion hereinbelow:
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A K Mishra - Full Document

Central Organisation For Railway ... vs M/S Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv) A Joint Venture ... on 17 December, 2019

25. Contending that the appointment of retired employees as arbitrators cannot be assailed merely because an arbitrator is a retired employee of one of the parties, learned ASG has placed reliance upon Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh v. Delhi Metro Rail 18 Corporation Limited (2017) 4 SCC 665. After referring to various judgments and also the scope of amended provision of Section 12 of the Amendment Act, 2015 and the entries in the Seventh Schedule , the Supreme Court observed that merely because the panel of arbitrators drawn by the respondent-Delhi Metro Rail Corporation are the Government employees or Ex-Government employees, that by itself may not make such persons ineligible to act as arbitrators of the respondent-DMRC. It was observed that the persons who have worked in the Railways under the Central Government or the Central Public Works Department or Public Sector Undertakings cannot be treated as employee or consultant or advisor of the respondent-DMRC. In para (26) of Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh, the Supreme Court held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 210 - R Banumathi - Full Document

M/S Iworld Business Solutions Private ... vs M/S Delhi Metro Rail Corporation ... on 4 December, 2020

26. I do not see how the petitioner can seek to obtain any advantage from paras 27and 28 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Voestalpine Schienen GMBH vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited6, or the observations and suggestions contained therein. In any event, on facts, those observations and suggestions have no application to the present case, as the persons included in the panel forwarded by the respondent to the petitioner, are, admittedly, retired Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 71/2020 Page 16 of 18 Signing Date:07.12.2020 16:16:29 Additional District Judges. In fact, therefore, the panel forwarded by the respondent to the petitioner is eminently in accord with the suggestions contained in para 28 of the judgment in Voestalpine6. Para 28 of the judgment in Voestalpine6 , therefore, would seem to militate against, rather than support, the stand adopted by the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Irb Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express ... vs National Highways Authority Of India on 27 August, 2020

The conduct of the SAROD appears to be in complete disregard of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Voestalpine (supra). Thus, even though I am inclined to appoint an Arbitrator who would be agreeable to accept the fee schedule prescribed by the SAROD, the choice cannot be limited to the present panel of SAROD which is hardly broad based, with only 4 empanelled arbitrators from a legal background viz. the other 29 arbitrators possessing administrative experience/engineering qualifications. Compared to that, the Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: ARB.P. 860/2019 Page 24 of 26 Signing Date:27.08.2020 17:05:03 erstwhile panel, which continued to exist till 31.05.2020, was broad based in nature and was scaled down not because of any deliberate, malicious or willful removal of the arbitrators by the SAROD but on account of the expiry of the panel members' terms, which were never extended on account of the extenuating circumstances ushered in by the global pandemic.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - R Palli - Full Document

Sahil City Sports vs Cricket Academy Of Pathans Pvt. Ltd on 24 December, 2020

19. Supreme Court in the case of M/s Voestalpine Schienen GMBH Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.- (2017) 4 SCC 665 has construed Section 12(5) of the Act (as amended) and also the Seventh Schedule to the Act and has held that under Section 12(5) of the Act, notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. It is held that in such an eventuality, when the arbitration clause finds foul with the amended provisions i.e. Section 12(5) of the Act, the appointment of an arbitrator would be beyond pale of arbitration agreement, empowering the Court to appoint such arbitrator(s), as may be permissible. Other party cannot insist for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement. In such situation, that would be the effect of non-
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next