Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.38 seconds)
Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Private ... vs Union Of India on 23 May, 2023 cites

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

The reason is clear that whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter-balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution. Naturally, the person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator. That has to be taken as the essence of the amendments brought in by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (3 of 2016) and recognised by the decision of this Court in TRF Ltd. [TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 377 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 72]."
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 201 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

The Government Of Haryana Pwd Haryana (B ... vs M/S G.F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. on 3 January, 2019

26. The same view was reiterated in State of Haryana v. G.F. Toll Road (P) Ltd. [State of Haryana v. G.F. Toll Road (P) Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 505 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 170] wherein, the Supreme Court held that the appointment of a retired employee of a party to the agreement cannot be assailed on the ground that he is a retired/former employee of one of the parties to the agreement. Absolutely, there is no bar under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 for appointment of a retired employee to act as an arbitrator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 26 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next