Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.95 seconds)
Proddatur Cable Tv Digi Services vs Siti Cable Network Limited on 20 January, 2020 cites

Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019

8. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Perkins (supra) and Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs. United Telecoms Limited (2019) 5 SCC 755. He contends that it is undisputed that the respondent had unilaterally appointed the Arbitrator and thus the appointment is vitiated in terms of the above judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 440 - R F Nariman - Full Document

M/S. Centrotrade Minerals And Metals ... vs Hindustan Copper Ltd. on 15 December, 2016

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the autonomy of the parties to the choice of procedure as contained in an Arbitration Agreement is a foundation pillar of arbitration. Parties are at liberty to choose the procedure for arbitration including but not limited to the appointment of an arbitrator. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2017) 2 SCC 228 and it is submitted that the judgment was delivered post the 2015 amendment to the Act.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 28 - Cited by 21 - M B Lokur - Full Document

M/S.Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs M/S. Indo Swiss Synthetics Gem ... on 14 November, 1995

13. It is next contended that under Section 7 of the Act, parties can decide on the procedure for appointment of the Arbitrator. The OMP (T) (COMM) 109/2019 Page 10 of 23 petitioner by executing the Distribution Agreement had on its free will and without coercion agreed for appointment of the Arbitrator as per the terms of clause 13. The respondent in appointing the Arbitrator has acted in terms of the agreement between the parties. It is also contended that right of one party to an arbitration agreement, to appoint a Sole Arbitrator has been in existence and has been upheld by the courts in various judgments. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Indo Swiss Synthetics Gem Manufacturing Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 54 and Yashwith Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 204. It is also argued that post the Amendment Act, 2015, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has upheld the right of a party to an Arbitration Agreement to appoint a Sole Arbitrator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 54 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

Yashwith Construction P. Ltd vs Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. & Anr on 3 July, 2006

13. It is next contended that under Section 7 of the Act, parties can decide on the procedure for appointment of the Arbitrator. The OMP (T) (COMM) 109/2019 Page 10 of 23 petitioner by executing the Distribution Agreement had on its free will and without coercion agreed for appointment of the Arbitrator as per the terms of clause 13. The respondent in appointing the Arbitrator has acted in terms of the agreement between the parties. It is also contended that right of one party to an arbitration agreement, to appoint a Sole Arbitrator has been in existence and has been upheld by the courts in various judgments. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Indo Swiss Synthetics Gem Manufacturing Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 54 and Yashwith Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 204. It is also argued that post the Amendment Act, 2015, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has upheld the right of a party to an Arbitration Agreement to appoint a Sole Arbitrator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 85 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

M/S Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 30 September, 2016

28. The respondent has also sought rejection of the petition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Voestalpine (supra). In my view, the said judgment would not help the respondent for more than one reason. The Arbitration Clause in the said case was completely different from the present case, as therein the party was to draw up a panel of Arbitrators from which the other party was to choose. It was not a case of unilateral appointment by one party to the agreement.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 290 - Full Document

Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019

6. The petitioner avers that in view of the said judgment, the petitioner conveyed to the nominated Arbitrator not to proceed with the arbitration as her mandate stands terminated de jure. The OMP (T) (COMM) 109/2019 Page 2 of 23 Arbitrator vide an email dated 07.12.2019 communicated that she would continue with the proceeding unless there was a judicial order terminating her mandate. Hence the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 1034 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1   2 Next