Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)
Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air ... vs Mahamaya Infrastructure Private ... on 2 February, 2022 cites

Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. vs Meena Vijay Khetan & Ors. on 11 May, 1999

"11. At this stage, it is necessary for us to refer to the decision rendered in Olympus Superstructures (P) Ltd. v. Meena Vijay Khetan2 wherein this Court was confronted with the issue of there being two different arbitration clauses in 1 (2020) 9 SCC 136 2 (1999) 5 SCC 651 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI ARB.P. 498/2021 Page 1 of 14 Signing Date:08.02.2022 21:02:51 two related agreements between the same parties. This Court while dealing with the same had harmonised both the clauses and had on reconciliation held that the parties should get the disputes resolved under the main agreement. In that context it was held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 667-68, para 30) "30. If there is a situation where there are disputes and differences in connection with the main agreement and also disputes in regard to "other matters"
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 215 - M J Rao - Full Document

Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020

In any event, prima facie, the contract agreement annexed as Annexure R-2 to the reply of the respondent cannot be taken stock of by this Court, especially in view of the limited jurisdiction that it exercises in the present proceedings, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI ARB.P. 498/2021 Page 8 of 14 Signing Date:08.02.2022 21:02:51 circumscribed by Section 11(6A) of the 1996 Act, read with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corporation4.
Supreme Court of India Cites 132 - Cited by 615 - S Khanna - Full Document

Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019

28. Mr. Kapoor acknowledges, quite fairly, that this clause would be incapable of enforcement in view of Section 12 (5) of the 1996 Act, read with the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Pvt. Ltd.5, Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Ltd.6 and TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd7. which invalidate any clause which confers authority, to one of the parties to the contract, to appoint the arbitrator. In such a case, the decisions are unanimous in requiring the court to appoint the arbitrator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 1034 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019

28. Mr. Kapoor acknowledges, quite fairly, that this clause would be incapable of enforcement in view of Section 12 (5) of the 1996 Act, read with the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Pvt. Ltd.5, Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Ltd.6 and TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd7. which invalidate any clause which confers authority, to one of the parties to the contract, to appoint the arbitrator. In such a case, the decisions are unanimous in requiring the court to appoint the arbitrator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 440 - R F Nariman - Full Document

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

29. As such, as the arbitration Clause in the LOA would, in my opinion, prevail and, as an arbitrator cannot be appointed in accordance with the said clause, in view of Section 12 (5) of the 1996 Act and the law laid down in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC5 and the other decisions cited supra, the court would have to appoint the 5 2019 SCC Online SC 1517 6 3 (2019) 5 SCC 755 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI ARB.P. 498/2021 Page 13 of 14 Signing Date:08.02.2022 21:02:51 arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 201 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1