Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
M/S Concast Jawasa Road Projects Pvt. ... vs Madhya Pradesh Road Development ... on 27 October, 2016 cites

M/S Concast Jawasa Road Projects Pvt. ... vs Madhya Pradesh Road Development ... on 18 April, 2016

8. The Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal is constituted as per Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 by Act No. 29 of 1983 and is functional since long, having power to adjudicate reference made to it in shape of disputes relating to work contract awarded by the State or any of its functionaries. The 6 AC 6/2016 M/s Concast Jawasa Road Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.P. Road Develop.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Aps Kushwaha (Ssi Unit) vs Municipal Corp.Gwalior & Ors on 17 February, 2011

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid background contends that in view of the decisions of the Apex court in the cases of A.P.Kushwaha (SSI UNIT) Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior & Another (2011) 123 SCC 258, Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority & Another Vs. L.G.Chaudhary Engineers & Contractors 2012 (3) SCC 495 and the two decisions of coordinate benches of this court in the cases of Makhija Construction Co. Indore Vs. Madhya Pradesh Rural & Development Authority, Bhopal, [2011(3) MPLJ 584] and Mamta Awasthy & others Vs. Ajay Kumar Shrivastava [2011(3) MPLJ 588], it was incumbent upon the respondent/Corporation to have invoked Clause 44.3 of the Agreement and appoint its nominee Arbitrator to enable the appointment of all the three Arbitrators leading to constitution of the Board of Arbitrators as contemplated by Clause 44.3.2. of the said Agreement. The petitioner has already appointed its nominee Arbitrator as aforesaid, with due intimation to the respondent/Corporation which has failed to appoint its nominee Arbitrator, giving cause of action to the petitioner herein to invoke the provisions of Section 11 of the Act 1996 seeking direction to appoint appropriate Arbitrator so that proceedings of the arbitration case can be adjudicated in terms of arbitral clause 44.3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 34 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Smt. Mamta Awasthy vs Ajay Kumar Shrivastava on 5 May, 2010

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid background contends that in view of the decisions of the Apex court in the cases of A.P.Kushwaha (SSI UNIT) Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior & Another (2011) 123 SCC 258, Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority & Another Vs. L.G.Chaudhary Engineers & Contractors 2012 (3) SCC 495 and the two decisions of coordinate benches of this court in the cases of Makhija Construction Co. Indore Vs. Madhya Pradesh Rural & Development Authority, Bhopal, [2011(3) MPLJ 584] and Mamta Awasthy & others Vs. Ajay Kumar Shrivastava [2011(3) MPLJ 588], it was incumbent upon the respondent/Corporation to have invoked Clause 44.3 of the Agreement and appoint its nominee Arbitrator to enable the appointment of all the three Arbitrators leading to constitution of the Board of Arbitrators as contemplated by Clause 44.3.2. of the said Agreement. The petitioner has already appointed its nominee Arbitrator as aforesaid, with due intimation to the respondent/Corporation which has failed to appoint its nominee Arbitrator, giving cause of action to the petitioner herein to invoke the provisions of Section 11 of the Act 1996 seeking direction to appoint appropriate Arbitrator so that proceedings of the arbitration case can be adjudicated in terms of arbitral clause 44.3.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1