Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Jj Restaurants Gurgaon Llp vs Ambience Developers And ... on 17 December, 2021 cites

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

3. Mr. Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner, points out that the afore-extracted clause was unenforceable in law in view of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ("the 1996 Act"), read with the judgments of the Supreme Court in TRF Limited v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd. 1, Perkins Eastman Architects DPCC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.2, Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd.3, and Haryana Space Application Centre v. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd.4 There can be no cavil with this proposition, as an arbitration clause which confers exclusive authority on one of the parties to the agreement to appoint the arbitrator is not enforceable in law.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 201 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

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

3. Mr. Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner, points out that the afore-extracted clause was unenforceable in law in view of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ("the 1996 Act"), read with the judgments of the Supreme Court in TRF Limited v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd. 1, Perkins Eastman Architects DPCC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.2, Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd.3, and Haryana Space Application Centre v. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd.4 There can be no cavil with this proposition, as an arbitration clause which confers exclusive authority on one of the parties to the agreement to appoint the arbitrator is not enforceable in law.
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

3. Mr. Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner, points out that the afore-extracted clause was unenforceable in law in view of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ("the 1996 Act"), read with the judgments of the Supreme Court in TRF Limited v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd. 1, Perkins Eastman Architects DPCC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.2, Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd.3, and Haryana Space Application Centre v. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd.4 There can be no cavil with this proposition, as an arbitration clause which confers exclusive authority on one of the parties to the agreement to appoint the arbitrator is not enforceable in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 440 - R F Nariman - Full Document

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

3. Mr. Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner, points out that the afore-extracted clause was unenforceable in law in view of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ("the 1996 Act"), read with the judgments of the Supreme Court in TRF Limited v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd. 1, Perkins Eastman Architects DPCC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.2, Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd.3, and Haryana Space Application Centre v. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd.4 There can be no cavil with this proposition, as an arbitration clause which confers exclusive authority on one of the parties to the agreement to appoint the arbitrator is not enforceable in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 45 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1