Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)
M/S S. K. Builders vs M/S Cls Construction Pvt Ltd on 8 August, 2024 cites

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

4. Thus, it would be seen that Clause 16 of the MOU itself envisaged arbitration by an Arbitrator to be mutually appointed by both parties. That said, even if the agreement were, as in certain other cases, to have provided for unilateral appointment of an arbitrator, such a covenant could not have been enforced in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd3, Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. United Telecoms Ltd4, TRF Ltd v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd5 and Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) v. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd6. Nonetheless, in the present case, the arbitration agreement 2 "MoU" hereinafter 3 (2020) 20 SCC 760 4 (2019) 5 SCC 755 5 (2017) 8 SCC 377 6 (2021) 3 SCC 103 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 297/2023 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 2 of 21 Digitally Signed KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:09.08.2024 Signing Date:09.08.2024 19:34:37 19:34:02 categorically envisaged bilateral appointment of the arbitrator by consent of parties.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 201 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Haryana Space Application Centre ... vs M/S Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd. on 20 January, 2021

4. Thus, it would be seen that Clause 16 of the MOU itself envisaged arbitration by an Arbitrator to be mutually appointed by both parties. That said, even if the agreement were, as in certain other cases, to have provided for unilateral appointment of an arbitrator, such a covenant could not have been enforced in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd3, Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. United Telecoms Ltd4, TRF Ltd v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd5 and Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) v. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd6. Nonetheless, in the present case, the arbitration agreement 2 "MoU" hereinafter 3 (2020) 20 SCC 760 4 (2019) 5 SCC 755 5 (2017) 8 SCC 377 6 (2021) 3 SCC 103 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 297/2023 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 2 of 21 Digitally Signed KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:09.08.2024 Signing Date:09.08.2024 19:34:37 19:34:02 categorically envisaged bilateral appointment of the arbitrator by consent of parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 45 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next