Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.29 seconds)
Rajkumar Tamotia vs Alok Sharma on 22 May, 2024 cites

Trf Ltd vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd on 3 July, 2017

26. The judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the matter of Bharat Broadband (supra) has relied by the Apex Court in the matter of TRF Ltd. (supra), Aravali Power (supra), Perkins Eastman (supra), Jaipur Zila (supra) and by the coordinate Bench in the matter of Om Sai (Supra) and in none of the 29 judgments it is held that if the arbitrator has not withdrawn himself from the office of the arbitrator and there is a dispute in respect to the eligibility of the arbitrator, the same can be decided in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act. In all the cases, the Apex Court has considered the fact that the arbitrator was appointed by the ineligible authority and, therefore, such arbitrator would render himself ineligible to conduct the arbitration. In none of the case relied by the applicants, the mandate of the named sole arbitrator was terminated in the proceedings arising out of application filed under Section 11 of the Act of 1996.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 49 - Cited by 374 - D Misra - Full Document

Walter Bau Ag, Legal Successor, Of The ... vs Municipal Corp. Of Greater Mumbai And ... on 20 January, 2015

(Walter Bau AG case [Walter Bau AG v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, (2015) 3 SCC 800 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 450] , SCC p. 806, para 10) '10. Unless the appointment of the arbitrator is ex facie valid and such appointment satisfies the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, acceptance of such appointment as a fait accompli to debar the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) cannot be countenanced in law....'
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 35 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019

'9.Promises, express and implied.--Insofar as a proposal or acceptance of any promise is made in words, 14 the promise is said to be express. Insofar as such proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be implied.' It is thus necessary that there be an "express" agreement in writing. This agreement must be an agreement by which both parties, with full knowledge of the fact that Shri Khan is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator, still go ahead and say that they have full faith and confidence in him to continue as such. The facts of the present case disclose no such express agreement. The appointment letter which is relied upon by the High Court [Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11905] as indicating an express agreement on the facts of the case is dated 17-1-2017. On this date, the Managing Director of the appellant was certainly not aware that Shri Khan could not be appointed by him as Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule only went to the invalidity of the appointment of the Managing Director himself as an arbitrator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 440 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 Next