Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Vascular Therapeutics India Pvt. Ltd. vs India Medronic Private Limited & Anr on 1 November, 2018
cites
Article 9 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Antrix Corp.Ltd vs Devas Multimedia P.Ltd on 10 May, 2013
25. As far as the maintainability of the present petition is concerned,
as the Arbitral Tribunal itself has been found to be invalidly
constituted, petition under Section 13 of the Act would have no
application. There is infact, no Arbitral Tribunal in existence in the eyes
of law. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Antrix Corporation
Ltd.(supra) would, therefore, have no application to the facts of the
present case.
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Dharma Prathishthanam vs M/S. Madhok Construction Pvt. Ltd on 2 November, 2004
In Dharma Prathishthanam v. Madhok Construction (P) Ltd.,
(2005) 9 SCC 686, the Supreme Court has held that where the
constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is itself a nullity all proceedings
conducted by it would equally be null and void and with no legal effect.
1