Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
M/S Vsk Technologies Private Limited & ... vs Delhi Jal Board on 27 January, 2021 cites

Central Organisation For Railway ... vs M/S Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv) A Joint Venture ... on 17 December, 2019

21. The reliance placed by Mr. Singh on the decision in the case of Central Organization for Railway Electrification v. ECI (supra) is misplaced. In that case, the Arbitration Clause provided for the Arbitral Tribunal to be constituted by Gazetted Railway Officers or three retired Railway Officers above a certain rank. The petitioner (Railways) was required to send names of four empanelled retired Railway Officers and the contractor was required to suggest two names out of the said panel for appointment as its nominee. The General Manager was required to appoint one of the names out of the two names as suggested by the contractor as the contractor's nominee and the remaining Arbitrator from the panel or outside the panel. The Supreme Court noted that the procedure adopted also took into account the option of the contractor. The Court was of the view that since the agreement provided for the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal out of the panel of serving/retired officers, the procedure as agreed by the parties ought to have been followed. In the present case, ARB.P.2/2021 Page 11 of 13 the Clause does not entail any such procedure for suggesting any names out of the panel of Arbitrators maintained by the DJB. Therefore, the contention that the decision of the DJB to nominate an Arbitrator must be sustained since the Arbitrator appointed was one from the panel maintained internally, is unpersuasive. The question whether the DJB maintains a panel of Arbitrators is its internal matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 210 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Trf Ltd. vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. & Anr. on 17 February, 2017

He submitted that the said rationale was further extended by the Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (supra) and the Supreme Court held that once a person is ineligible by operation of law to act as an Arbitrator, he also cannot nominate another to nominate an Arbitrator. The Court had held that "it was inconceivable in law that person who is statutorily ineligible can nominate a person." Mr. Singh submitted that the said decision was rendered in context of an Arbitration Clause, which provided that disputes and differences between the parties would be referred to "sole arbitration of the Managing Director of buyer or his nominee".
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 201 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 Next