Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.55 seconds)

Ace Pipeline Contracts Private Limited vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 4 April, 2007

In Ace Pipeline Contracts Private Limited v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (2007 (2) ARBLR49 (SC); Datar Switchgears Ltd., (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in cases arising under Section 11(6) of the Act, if the opposite party has not made an appointment within 30 days of demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but an appointment has to be made before the former files application under Section 11 of the Act, seeking appointment of a arbitrator and only then the right of the opposite party ceases. In the instant, as already observed supra, the 30 days period would start from the date of failure of amicable settlement i.e., from 03.09.2014, the date on which, the respondent addressed letter stating so to the applicant and not from 28.07.2014 and 11.08.2014, as alleged by the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 141 - A K Mathur - Full Document

National Highways Authority Of India & ... vs Bumihiway Ddb Ltd. (Jv) & Ors on 25 September, 2006

22. It is pertinent to note that under Section 11(6) of the Act, the Court has jurisdiction to make the appointment only when the person including an institution, fails to perform any function entrusted to it under that procedure. If the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked without first following the procedure agreed to between the parties, thus no cause of action would arise to seek the appointment from the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act and thus the said petition would be premature. The parties are required to comply with the procedure of appointment as agreed to and the defaulting party cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. (see National Highways Authority of India and another v. Bumihiway DDB Ltd.,(JV) [2007 (2) ALT 18 (SC)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 58 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1