Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.93 seconds)

Demerara Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs Demerara Distilleries Ltd. on 24 November, 2014

"5. Ms. Pahwa, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that her only objection, to the petition, was that the petitioner has not exhausted the avenue of amicable resolution, contemplated by Clause 12 of the Share Buyback Agreement. I am not inclined to agree with this submission. The recital of facts, as set out in the petition, indicate that efforts at trying to resolve the disputes, amicably were made, but did not succeed. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Demarara Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v Demerara Distilleries Ltd. and this Court, in its judgment in Ravindra Kumar Verma v. BPTP Ltd., opined that relegation of the parties to the avenue of amicable resolution, when the Court is moved under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, would be unjustified, where such relegation would merely be in the nature of an empty formality. The arbitration clause in the present case does not envisage any formal regimen or protocol for amicable resolution, such as issuance of a notice in that regard and completion of any stipulated time period thereafter, before which arbitral proceedings could be invoked. In the absence of any such stipulation, I am of the opinion, following the law laid down in Demarara Distilleries Pvt.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Ravindra Kumar Verma vs M/S. Bptp Ltd. & Anr. on 18 November, 2014

2021:DHC:496 7 (2015) 13 SCC 610 8 MANU/DE/3028/2014 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 1295/2022 Page 17 of 22 By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:17.04.2023 18:19:54 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2584 Ltd..and Ravindra Kumar Verma v. BPTP Ltd nothing worthwhile would be achieved, by relegating the parties to explore any avenue of amicable resolution. Besides, the appointment of an arbitrator by this Court would not act as an impediment in the parties resolving their disputes amicably, should it be possible at any point of time."
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 17 - V J Mehta - Full Document

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

In the above background, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Perkins Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 1295/2022 Page 12 of 22 By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:17.04.2023 18:19:54 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2584 Eastman Architects DPC Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.4, an independent arbitrator is liable to be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Further, it is contended that it was not open for the respondent to unilaterally devise a procedure as set out in respondent's letter dated 14.11.2022 (supra) and seek to suggest a panel of four names, out of which the petitioner was asked to choose any two names.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 1034 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1   2 Next