Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.60 seconds)Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 26 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019
23. We are unable to agree that the decision in Bharat
Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecom Ltd. (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."
Krr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2018
ARBTN No. 2535/2018 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page No.17 of 24 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we are not inclined to go into the
merits of this contention of the appellant nor
examine the correctness or otherwise of the above
view taken by the Delhi High Court in Ratna
Infrastructure Projects case; suffice it to note that
as per Section 26 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, the
provisions of the Amended Act, 2015 shall not
apply to the arbitral proceedings commenced in
accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of
the principal Act before the commencement of the
Amendment Act unless the parties otherwise
agree. In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the proviso in Clause (65) of the
general conditions of the contract cannot be taken
to be the agreement between the parties so as to
apply the provisions of the amended Act. As per
Section 26 of the Act, the provisions of the
Amendment Act, 2015 shall apply in relation to
arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the
date of commencement of the Amendment Act,
2015 (w.e.f. 23-10-2015). In the present case,
arbitration proceedings commenced way back in
2013, much prior to coming into force of the
amended Act and therefore, provisions of the
amended Act cannot be invoked."
Section 21 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Taleda Square Private Limited vs Rail Land Development Authority on 10 October, 2023
e) Taleda Square Pvt. Ltd vs Rail Land Development Authority
[2023 SCC Online Del 6321]
"5. From a perusal of the aforesaid, what emerges is that the
methodology as prescribed under clause 23.5.10 of the
agreement while entitling the claimant/petitioner to select
one of the arbitrators from the panel of five offered by the
respondent also empowers the respondents to nominate the
other two arbitrators. Having given my thoughtful
consideration to the rival submission of the parties, I find
that the respondent's plea that the petitioner should be
compelled to select its nominee arbitrator from the five-
member panel provided by the respondent cannot be
accepted.