Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
In the light of these plea/objections, before this
Court deal with these pleas, though not referred to or relied upon,
it will be desirable to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in
the matter of Associate Builders vs. DDA, 2015 (3) SCC 49,
where the term 'public policy of India' has been discussed and
explained extensively. The award passed by the arbitrator was
held in the said judgment to be against 'fundamental policy of
Indian law' on the following grounds:
Delhi Development Authority vs M/S Bhardwaj Brothers on 1 August, 2014
In support of his contentions, he has relied upon
judgments - DDA Vs. Bhardwaj Brothers, AIR 2014, Delhi 147;
Ardee Infrastructure Vs. Anuradha Bhatia, 237 (2017) DLT 140;
Section 21 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs Yashpal & Sons on 6 January, 2017
In
judgment - Aardee Infrastructure (supra), it has been held as
under:
"On the other hand, if the expression "to the arbitral
proceedings" used in the first limb of Section 26 is given
the same expansive meaning as the expression "in
relation to arbitration proceedings" as appearing in the
second limb of Section 26, then, the matter becomes very
simple and does not result in any anomaly. All the
arbitral proceedings (and here we mean the entire gamut,
including the court proceedings in relation to proceedings
before the arbitral tribunal), which commenced in
accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the said
Act prior to 23.10.2015, would be governed, subject to an
agreement between the parties to the contrary, by the
unamended provisions and all those, in terms of the
second part of Section 26, which commenced on or after
23.10.2015 would be governed by the amended
provisions".
Laxmi Mathur vs The Chief General Manager, Mtnl, Mumbai on 17 April, 2000
Laxmi Mathur Vs. The Chief General Manager, MTNL, 2000 (3)
MhLj 841 and Sumitomo Vs. ONGC, AIR 2010 SC 3400.