Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)Section 29A in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Jayesh H.Pandya vs Subhtex India Limited Through Its ... on 27 August, 2019
Reliance on the decision by Mr.Seervai in case of
Mr.Jayesh Panda (supra) which undisputedly have held that the
arbitration proceedings are to be governed and run by the terms
as agreed between the parties, and the Arbitrator cannot go
beyond the clause of arbitration agreement, there can be no
second view about this well settled position of law, but in the
present case, when impliedly, the respondent continued to
participate in the proceedings and in fact, it itself was the cause for
pushing the proceedings beyond the agreed timelines, I do not
Ashish
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2024 18:55:13 :::
34/35 ARBP 42-24 J.doc
think that it can take advantage of the proposition of law laid
down in the aforesaid decisions.
Teltech Instrumentation Pvt. Ltd vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 1 March, 2012
8 Mr. Seervai, would also place reliance upon a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Teltech Instrumentation Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ltd., Mumbai,3 which has in turn relied upon the decision in case of NBCC (supra), to hold that where the parties had not agreed to the extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator, it automatically gets terminated and according to him, the decision has gone ahead and held that in such a case, there is no question of extension of time, even by consent, as the parties themselves agreed to the time schedule, so fixed. In such a contingency, according to Mr. Seervai, what happens is, the mandate automatically gets terminated, and which cannot be extended unilaterally at the instance of either one party or even the Arbitrator himself.
Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. vs M/S. Mantech Consultants on 2 May, 2012
He would further rely upon a Division Bench
decision of this court in case of Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd vs
Mantec Consultants,4 where it is held that the arbitrator is require
to adjudicate the disputes in accordance with the agreed terms of
contract and the agreed procedure and all are bound by agreed
terms and the Arbitrator cannot go beyond the clauses in the
agreement, and in the view of the agreed clause itself, it has been
held that after lapse of agreed time, the arbitrator cease to exercise
his jurisdiction in terms of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act and such
defect is incurable and implied consent cannot confer jurisdiction,
once the agreed period has lapsed.
M/S Hindustan Wires Limited vs Mr. R. Suresh on 4 April, 2013
He would place reliance upon the decision of this
Court in case of Snehdeep Auto Centre vs. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd5 and also upon a decision of learned Single Judge
of this Court in case of Hindustan Wires Ltd vs. Mr. R Suresh and
anr,6.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Mascon Multiservices & ... vs Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd on 11 August, 2014
35 Mr. Engineer who has placed on record the decision
of this Court in case of Snehdeep Auto Centre (supra), as well as
the decision in case of Mascon Multi Services and Consultants
Pvt Ltd Vs. Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd and Anr ,7 are the fact
7 2008 SCC Online Bom 723
Ashish
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2024 18:55:13 :::
35/35 ARBP 42-24 J.doc
based decisions, though it do not disturb the legal position that an
Arbitrator is a creation of an agreement between the parties and
shall operate within the framework of the contract.