Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.37 seconds)

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Boghara Polyfab Pvt.Ltd on 18 September, 2008

13.The scope of the power under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act was considerably wide in view of the decisions in SBP and Co. (supra) and Boghara Polyfab (supra). This position continued till the amendment brought about in 2015. After the amendment, all that the Courts need to see is whether an arbitration agreement exists - nothing more, nothing less. The legislative policy and purpose is essentially to minimize the Court’s intervention at the stage of appointing the arbitrator and this intention as incorporated in Section 11 (6A) ought to be respected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 455 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

M/S. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & ... vs M/S. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd on 30 January, 2002

(x) Since all were guided by the decision of this Court in Konkan Rly. Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd. and orders under Section 11(6) of the Act have been made based on the position adopted in that decision, we clarify that appointments of arbitrators or Arbitral Tribunals thus far made, are to be treated as valid, all objections being left to be decided under Section 16 of the Act. As and from this date, the position as adopted in this judgment will govern even pending applications under Section 11(6) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 332 - Full Document
1   2 Next