Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Denel(Propritary Limited) vs Bharat Electronics Ltd.& Anr on 10 May, 2010
7. It is further the Award is also opposed to the prevalent law in
India as it is directly in violation of and contrary to the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases
394 (Denel (Proprietary) Limited vs. Bharat Electronic Limited and
another). The Award is, therefore, vitiated and is liable to be set aside
on this ground alone. At the time of entering into the contract, from
which the arbitration dispute arose, the plaintiff did not have any
effective or meaningful choice but was compelled to sign and execute
the contract and thereby accept the provisions relating to the
appointment and constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal in the manner
specified in the contract. The plaintiff was, by virtue of the inequal
bargaining power and predominant powers of the defendant without
being relating to constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. Consequently,
such terms of the contract that provided for constitution of an Arbitral
Tribunal comprising the employees of the defendant as Arbitrators
without any representation or an Arbitrator from the side of the plaintiff
would be rendered unconstitutional, unjustified, illegal and opposed to
the public law of India. Such a clause would be void and unenforceable.
Resultantly, the Award passed by such Arbitral Tribunal is wholly
arbitrary, unfair, inequitable and suffers from the vice of bias to the
detriment of the plaintiff. The Award is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 75 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 85 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
1