Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Medeor Hospital Limited Formerly ... vs Ernst And Young Llp on 1 May, 2023

M S Isc Projects Private Limited vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 21 February, 2025

the signature of the minority arbitrator is contained in the majority award itself. This view has been followed in Medeor Hospital Ltd. vs. Ernst & Young LLP17, where two arbitrators gave their decision on 17.08.2021 and the third arbitrator gave their decision on 04.10.2021. The reason for the missing signature, although not stated in the award, was clear from the fact that she gave a separate opinion, which was, in fact, signed.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P Jalan - Full Document

M/S Orind Special Refractories Ltd vs M/S Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd on 11 September, 2025

38. From the aforesaid judgment in Medeor Hospital Limited (supra), it is evident that, (i) where one of the Arbitrators of the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators writes an award signed by him and the other co- arbitrator consents to such award by a separate award which separate award is also signed, the award would be by the majority of the arbitrators. It follows that the detailed award passed by one arbitrator can be simply consented to by the other arbitrator, and (ii) that the arbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal, not agreeing with the majority award or differing with it, or passing his separate opinion, signed by him, would fulfill the requirement of Sections 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996 and in such a situation reason for omission of signature on the majority award would be very clear and i.e., that, such arbitrator passed his separate differing award/opinion and so, in the majority award his signatures were omitted. Any specific reasons need not be assigned in such a case. Such RNT, J & MRK, J 22 ICOMAA No.1 of 2025 a majority award would be valid and binding and cannot be said to be no award for that reason.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Orind Special Refractories Ltd vs M/S Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd on 11 September, 2025

38. From the aforesaid judgment in Medeor Hospital Limited (supra), it is evident that, (i) where one of the Arbitrators of the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators writes an award signed by him and the other co- arbitrator consents to such award by a separate award which separate award is also signed, the award would be by the majority of the arbitrators. It follows that the detailed award passed by one arbitrator can be simply consented to by the other arbitrator, and (ii) that the arbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal, not agreeing with the majority award or differing with it, or passing his separate opinion, signed by him, would fulfill the requirement of Sections 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996 and in such a situation reason for omission of signature on the majority award would be very clear and i.e., that, such arbitrator passed his separate differing award/opinion and so, in the majority award his signatures were omitted. Any specific reasons need not be assigned in such a case. Such RNT, J & MRK, J 22 ICOMAA No.1 of 2025 a majority award would be valid and binding and cannot be said to be no award for that reason.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd vs Neo Metalicks Limited on 15 May, 2026

61. It is argued that finding of fraud in the making of an award, in effect, casts a direct aspersion on the Presiding Arbitrator and he ought to have been given an opportunity to explain his position in regard to the allegations. Learned senior counsel cites in support of such proposition Kothari Industrial Corporation Limited v. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Limited reported at (2021) SCC OnLine Mad 5325 and Medeor Hospital Limited Formerly Rockland Hospitals Limited v. Ernst and Young LLP reported at (2023) 5 HCC (Del).
Calcutta High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd vs Neo Metalicks Limited on 15 May, 2026

61. It is argued that finding of fraud in the making of an award, in effect, casts a direct aspersion on the Presiding Arbitrator and he ought to have been given an opportunity to explain his position in regard to the allegations. Learned senior counsel cites in support of such proposition Kothari Industrial Corporation Limited v. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Limited reported at (2021) SCC OnLine Mad 5325 and Medeor Hospital Limited Formerly Rockland Hospitals Limited v. Ernst and Young LLP reported at (2023) 5 HCC (Del).
Calcutta High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd vs Neo Metalicks Limited on 15 May, 2026

61. It is argued that finding of fraud in the making of an award, in effect, casts a direct aspersion on the Presiding Arbitrator and he ought to have been given an opportunity to explain his position in regard to the allegations. Learned senior counsel cites in support of such proposition Kothari Industrial Corporation Limited v. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Limited reported at (2021) SCC OnLine Mad 5325 and Medeor Hospital Limited Formerly Rockland Hospitals Limited v. Ernst and Young LLP reported at (2023) 5 HCC (Del).
Calcutta High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document
1