Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
The Government Of Haryana Pwd Haryana (B ... vs M/S G.F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. on 3 January, 2019
In (2019) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 505 (GOVERNMENT
OF HARYANA PWD HARYANA (B AND R) BRANCH Vs. G.F.TOLL
ROAD PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS), has held that the Act does
not disqualify a former employee from acting as an arbitrator, provided
there are no justifiable doubts as to his independence and impartiality.
Hrd Corporation (Marcus Oil And ... vs Gail (India) Limited (Formerly Gas ... on 31 August, 2017
In (2018) 12 SCC 471 {HRD CORPORATION (MARCUS OIL
AND CHEMICAL DIVISION Vs. GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED (FORMERLY
GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED)}, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that doubts as to impartiality and independence of an
arbitrator are only justifiable if a reasonable third person having knowledge
of the relevant facts and circumstances would reach the conclusion that
there is a likelihood that the arbitrator may be influenced by factors other
than the merits of the case in reaching his or her decision. Further, this test
requires taking a broad common sensical approach to the items stated in
Schedules V and VII and this approach would, therefore, require a fair
construction of the words used therein, neither tending to enlarge or restrict
them unduly.
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 3 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Sp Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 December, 2018
In (2019) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 488 S.P.SINGLA
CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH AND ANOTHER has held that once the Arbitrator is already
appointed by one of the parties to the agreement in terms of the agreement,
arbitration agreement cannot be invoked for a second time.
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Mangalam Chaudhary Company vs Hindustan Constructions Company Ltd on 11 September, 2019
In 2019 SCC ONLINE BOMBAY 2054 (MANGALAM
CHAUDHARY COMPANY Vs. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY LTD) has held that since the arbitral proceedings had
commenced prior to 23rd October, 2015, in view of Section 87 inserted by
Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, which states that
9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.P.No.161 of 2017
unless otherwise parties agree, amendments made to the Arbitration Act by
the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015, would not apply to the arbitral
proceedings commenced before the commencement of the Arbitration &
Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 the amended provisions of Section 12
(5) amended on 23rd October 2015 would not apply to the facts of that case.