Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.24 seconds)Section 29A in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Trf Ltd vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd on 3 July, 2017
After this date, far from there being an express agreement
between the parties as to the validity of Shri Khan's appointment,
the appellant filed an application on 7-10-2017 before the sole
arbitrator, bringing the arbitrator's attention to the judgment
in TRF [TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 377 :
Section 7 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019
33. The decisions in HRD [HRD Corpn. v. GAIL, (2018) 12 SCC
471: (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 401) and Bharat Broadband [Bharat
Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd., (2019) 5
SCC 755: (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 1) are unequivocal and to the
effect that the issue of bias should be raised before the same
Tribunal at the earliest opportunity. The advertence of the
time-limit of 15 days is nothing but a statutory incorporation of
that idea. However, when the grounds enumerated in the
Seventh Schedule occur or are brought to the notice of one
party unless such party expressly waives its objections, it is
28
ipso facto sufficient for that party, to say that the Tribunal's
mandate is automatically terminated. The party aggrieved
then can go ahead and challenge the Tribunal's continuation
with the proceedings under Section 14."