Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 94 (1.52 seconds)
Documents citing Sms Ltd. vs Rail Vikas Nigam Limited on 14 January, 2020

M/S Sri Ganesh Engineering Works vs Northern Railway & Anr. on 29 November, 2023

I also state that the reliance placed by Mr. Wadhwa on the judgment of SMS Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable as the subsequent panel produced by the respondent therein was clearly not broad-based owing to the presence of only 8 members out of 37 in the panel provided, who were officers retired from organization other than Railways (respondent therein) and Public Sector Undertakings connected with Railways whereas in the panel in hand, the 26 names include retired Additional District Judges/District Judges/High Court Judges.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

M/S Sri Ganesh Engineering Works vs Northern Railway & Ors. on 29 November, 2023

I also state that the reliance placed by Mr. Wadhwa on the judgment of SMS Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable as the subsequent panel produced by the respondent therein was clearly not broad-based owing to the presence of only 8 members out of 37 in the panel provided, who were officers retired from organization other than Railways (respondent therein) and Public Sector Undertakings connected with Railways whereas in the panel in hand, the 26 names include retired Additional District Judges/District Judges/High Court Judges.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

M/S M.S. Contractor vs Union Of India & Ors. on 29 November, 2023

I also state that the reliance placed by Mr. Wadhwa on the judgment of SMS Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable as the subsequent panel produced by the respondent therein was clearly not broad-based owing to the presence of only 8 members out of 37 in the panel provided, who were officers retired from organization other than Railways (respondent therein) and Public Sector Undertakings connected with Railways whereas in the panel in hand, the 26 names include retired Additional District Judges/District Judges/High Court Judges.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Margo Networks Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs Railtel Corporation Of India Ltd. on 10 July, 2023

I also state that the reliance placed by Mr. Wadhwa on the judgment of SMS Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable as the subsequent panel produced by the respondent therein was clearly not broad-based owing to the presence of only 8 members out of 37 in the panel provided, who were officers retired from organization other than Railways (respondent therein) and Public Sector Undertakings connected with Railways whereas in the panel in hand, the 26 names include retired Additional District Judges / District Judges / High Court Judges.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - S Datta - Full Document

S. N Naik And Brothers A Proprietary ... vs Union Of India Through, Senior ... on 3 April, 2024

To come to this conclusion, Court referred to the judgments of this Court in SMS Limited v. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 77; BVSR-KVR (Joint Ventures) v. Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 456; Consortium of Autometers Alliance Ltd. and Canny Elevators Co. Ltd. v. Chief Electrical Engineer/Planning, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4042 and Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. (supra)."
Bombay High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Cholamandalam Investment And ... vs . on 13 December, 2022

29.In case title SMS Limited Vs. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited 18, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court dealt with an aspect where Railways claimed that it is offering a panel of 37 names for selection of the Arbitrator but the same was opposed by the plaintiff company as the proposed Arbitrators were primarily retired Railway Officers and few of them were from other PSUs. While referring to Voestalpine Judgment and Perkins Eastman Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court it was ruled by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that, " It is pertinent to note that in case of Perkins Eastmen the Supreme Court while dealing with the application under Order 7 Rule 6 read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Act held that as per scheme of Section 11 of the Act if there are justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the person nominated and if other circumstances warrant appointment of an independent arbitrator by ignoring the procedure prescribed, an appointment can be made by the Court,"
Delhi District Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next