Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Section 11 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
M/S. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & ... vs M/S. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd on 30 January, 2002
23. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Vengamamba Engineering Co., Juputi, Krishna District, (DB), in para 29 held that once the existence of an arbitration clause is not disputed, the Court, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in the first Konkan Railway Corporation's case, has no option but to make appointment of the arbitrator as quickly as possible. However, in terms of the provisions of 1996 Act, even the authority after filing of an application under Section 11(6) of the Act forfeits his right to appoint an arbitrator and such right exclusively vests in the Court.
Union Of India vs Vengamamba Engineering Co., Juputi, ... on 27 April, 2001
23. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Vengamamba Engineering Co., Juputi, Krishna District, (DB), in para 29 held that once the existence of an arbitration clause is not disputed, the Court, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in the first Konkan Railway Corporation's case, has no option but to make appointment of the arbitrator as quickly as possible. However, in terms of the provisions of 1996 Act, even the authority after filing of an application under Section 11(6) of the Act forfeits his right to appoint an arbitrator and such right exclusively vests in the Court.
State Of W.B vs National Builders (Sahai, J) on 13 October, 1993
In State of West Bengal v. National Builders, , the Apex Court although dealing with the provisions under the Old Act held thus:
Section 85 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Government Of A.P. And Ors. vs N.V. Choudary And Anr. on 8 October, 1993
4. It is the further case of the applicant that the so-called convenor-Arbitrator was in fact the Engineer-in-Chief (Administration) but not the Engineer-in-chief, Investigation. There was no such post of Engineer-in-chief, Investigation in litigation and CAD Department. The second arbitrator suggested by the said convenor was Joint Secretary to Government, whereas the Arbitration clause in the agreement provides for a Deputy Secretary, Finance and Planning Department. Under the circumstances, the applicant gave a notice to the first respondent in his letter dated 21.1.1990 requesting him to concur with the appointment of a sole arbitrator by selecting any one from the three retired Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. However, the first respondent rejected the said contention of the applicant in his letter-dated 7.2.1990. The applicant therefore, filed O.P. No. 196 of 1990 in the Court of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, requesting for appointment of an independent and qualified person as a sole arbitrator. However, O.P. No. 196 of 1990 was dismissed on 4.8.1997 in terms of the judgment reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N.V. Choudary, (FB). Meanwhile, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the New Act' for brevity) came into force with effect from 16.8.1996.