Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 975 (2.50 seconds)
Documents citing Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019

Mcleod Russel India Limited & Anr vs Aditya Birla Finance Limited & Ors on 14 February, 2023

Bharat Broadband vs. United Telecoms; (2019) 5 SCC 755 : The arbitration clause in the agreement provided for the arbitration to be referred to the sole arbitration of the CMD of the appellant and if the CMD is unwilling to act as such, then to the sole arbitration of some 26 other person appointed by the CMD. There was also no agreement in writing under the proviso to section 12(5) and more important, the party who had unilaterally nominated sought termination of the mandate. Moreover, the appellant Bharat Broadband filed a petition immediately after the judgment in TRF. This would appear from paragraph 20 of the Report which records that the Managing Director of the appellants was not aware that the arbitrator could not appointed by the MD under section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule which only became clear after the declaration of the law by the Supreme Court in TRF. The said paragraph also notes that the moment the appellant came to know of the invalidity of the arbitrator's appointment, it filed an application before the sole arbitrator for termination of his mandate. The contract in this case was also entered into before the amendment of 23.10.2015 and the involved a persona designata with the power to nominate an arbitrator in his place.
Calcutta High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 4 - M Bhattacharya - Full Document

A K Builders vs Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure ... on 25 February, 2022

11. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court regarding the proviso to Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, there is no scope for entertaining the submission that the petitioner had, by his conduct, impliedly waived its right under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. The waiver under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act has to be by an express agreement in writing. The contention that the Arbitrator was appointed by the Chief Engineer, DSIIDC pursuant to the request of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:28.02.2022 O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 12/2022 Page 5 of 9 the petitioner to appoint an arbitrator is of little relevance when one considers the case of Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited (supra). In that case the arbitrator was, in fact, appointed by the appellant who had then sought to challenge the same as being in violation of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Ms Bridge Building Construction Co Pvt ... vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. on 16 January, 2023

23. We are unable to agree that the decision in Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited (supra) can be distinguished on the aforesaid ground. The said decision had authoritatively held that in terms of the proviso of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, the ineligibility of an arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act could be waived only by an express agreement in writing and cannot be inferred by the conduct of the parties. Thus, the fact that the parties had participated before the arbitral tribunal cannot be construed as a waiver of their rights to object to the ineligibility of the arbitrator(s). We are unable to accept that while such a right could be exercised prior to the delivery of the award, it would cease thereafter. If the arbitrator is ineligible to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL O.M.P. (COMM) 87/2022 & O.M.P.(COMM) 377/2022 Page 8 of 10 Signing Date:19.01.2023 19:33:24 Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000404 act as an arbitrator, the arbitral award rendered by the arbitral tribunal would be without jurisdiction."15
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - P Jalan - Full Document

Y D Transport Company And Another vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited on 2 December, 2025

58. With regard to waiver to the applicability of the section 12(5) of the said Act, this Court is of the view that there was no such waiver. There was no express agreement between the parties by which the petitioners had agreed to waive their objections with regard to applicability of section 12(5) of the said Act. Section 12(5) of the said Act will apply to all arbitral proceedings commenced after October 23, 2015, even if the contract was executed earlier. Reference is made to Bharat Broadband (supra). The relevant paragraphs is quoted below:-
Calcutta High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - S Sarkar - Full Document

M/S Siddhartha Construction Co. vs India Tourism Development Corporation ... on 2 April, 2025

23. We are unable to agree that the decision in Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited (supra) can be distinguished on the aforesaid ground. The said decision had authoritatively held that in terms of the proviso of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, the ineligibility of an arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act could be waived only by an express agreement in writing and cannot be inferred by the conduct of the parties. Thus, the fact that the parties had participated before the arbitral tribunal cannot be construed as a waiver of their rights to object to the ineligibility of the arbitrator(s). We are Signature Not Verified Signed By:KESHAV FAO(OS) (COMM) 127/2022 Page 9 of 12 Signing Date:05.04.2025 17:02:02 unable to accept that while such a right could be exercised prior to the delivery of the award, it would cease thereafter. If the arbitrator is ineligible to act as an arbitrator, the arbitral award rendered by the arbitral tribunal would be without jurisdiction."
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit ... vs Delhi Jal Board on 12 November, 2021

18. Ms Bharti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has countered the aforesaid submissions. She stated that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. (supra) and Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited (supra), it is no longer permissible for any party to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator. However, she contended that in the present case, the appointment of Dr RCM was not done unilaterally but at the instance and, with the concurrence of the petitioner. She referred to Article IX of the Contract and submitted that in terms of the said clause, the disputes were required to be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by mutual consent of both parties. However, if the parties could not agree on the appointment of an arbitrator within a period of one month, the arbitrator was required to be nominated by the respondent.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Rajkumar Tamotia vs Alok Sharma on 22 May, 2024

'9.Promises, express and implied.--Insofar as a proposal or acceptance of any promise is made in words, 14 the promise is said to be express. Insofar as such proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be implied.' It is thus necessary that there be an "express" agreement in writing. This agreement must be an agreement by which both parties, with full knowledge of the fact that Shri Khan is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator, still go ahead and say that they have full faith and confidence in him to continue as such. The facts of the present case disclose no such express agreement. The appointment letter which is relied upon by the High Court [Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11905] as indicating an express agreement on the facts of the case is dated 17-1-2017. On this date, the Managing Director of the appellant was certainly not aware that Shri Khan could not be appointed by him as Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule only went to the invalidity of the appointment of the Managing Director himself as an arbitrator.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bridge Building Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. on 16 January, 2023

23. We are unable to agree that the decision in Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited (supra) can be distinguished on the aforesaid ground. The said decision had authoritatively held that in terms of the proviso of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, the ineligibility of an arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act could be waived only by an express agreement in writing and cannot be inferred by the conduct of the parties. Thus, the fact that the parties had participated before the arbitral tribunal cannot be construed as a waiver of their rights to object to the ineligibility of the arbitrator(s). We are unable to accept that while such a right could be exercised prior to the delivery of the award, it would cease thereafter. If the arbitrator is ineligible to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL O.M.P. (COMM) 87/2022 & O.M.P.(COMM) 377/2022 Page 8 of 10 Signing Date:19.01.2023 19:33:24 Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000404 act as an arbitrator, the arbitral award rendered by the arbitral tribunal would be without jurisdiction."15
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - P Jalan - Full Document

Shakti Pump India Ltd vs Apex Buildsys Ltd on 19 March, 2025

It is thus necessary that there be an "express" agreement in writing. This agreement must be an agreement by which both parties, with full Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 107/2024 Page 12 of 20 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:20.03.2025 19:20:38 knowledge of the fact that Shri Khan is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator, still go ahead and say that they have full faith and confidence in him to continue as such. The facts of the present case disclose no such express agreement. The appointment letter which is relied upon by the High Court [Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11905] as indicating an express agreement on the facts of the case is dated 17-1-2017. On this date, the Managing Director of the appellant was certainly not aware that Shri Khan could not be appointed by him as Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule only went to the invalidity of the appointment of the Managing Director himself as an arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

M/S Ambience Developers And ... vs M/S Smaaash Leisure Ltd on 18 December, 2023

23. We are unable to agree that the decision in Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited (supra) can be distinguished on the aforesaid ground. The said decision had authoritatively held that in terms of the proviso of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, the ineligibility of an arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act could be waived only by an express agreement in writing and cannot be inferred by the conduct of the parties. Thus, the fact that the parties had participated before the arbitral tribunal cannot be construed as a waiver of their rights to object to the ineligibility of the arbitrator(s). We are unable to accept that while such a right could be exercised prior to the delivery of the award, it would cease thereafter. If the arbitrator is ineligible to act as an arbitrator, the arbitral award rendered by the arbitral tribunal would be without jurisdiction."
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next