Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (1.48 seconds)The Arbitration Act, 1940
Datar Switchgears Ltd vs Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr on 18 October, 2000
11. The observations made by their Lordships are very
clear and their Lordships negatived the contention that 30
days should not (sic) be read in sub-section (6) of Section
11 of the Act; if the opposite party has not made an ap-
pointment within 30 days of demand, the right to make
appointment is not forfeited but continues. Their Lord-
ships in para 20 have also very categorically held that in
the present case the respondent made the appointment be-
fore the appellant filed the application under Section
11(6), though it was beyond 30 days from the date of de-
mand, the appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent
was valid and it cannot be said that the right was forfeit-
ed after expiry of 30 days from the date of demand. Their
Lordships were also very clear in their mind in para 21
and observed: (Datar Switchgears Ltd. case, SCC p.158)
"21. We need not decide whether for purpos-
Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962
Cases such as those in State of Punjab vs. Amar Singh and
Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab also stand on a different footing
altogether. The communication of orders in disciplinary proceedings
raise a question as to the effectiveness of the order and not whether
they are deemed to have been communicated once they are put in a
course of transmission.
Ace Pipeline Contracts Private Limited vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 4 April, 2007
95. I have earlier dealt with the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Ace Pipeline Contracts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited.
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Indian Oil Corp.Ltd.& Ors vs M/S Raja Transport(P) Ltd on 24 August, 2009
In Indian Oil Corporation vs. Raja Transport Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 8
SCC 520, the arbitration agreement required the disputes and
differences between the parties to be referred to the sole arbitration of
the Appellant's Director or of some officer of the Appellant nominated
by the Director. The Supreme Court considered the circumstances in
which the Chief Justice or his designate could ignore the appointment
procedure or the named arbitrator in the arbitration agreement and
appoint an arbitrator of his choice. The Supreme Court held:-