Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)Central Organisation For Railway ... vs M/S Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv) A Joint Venture ... on 17 December, 2019
15. Mr. Mehta submits that once the respondent had provided a list
of arbitrators to the petitioner on 12th August, 2020, and called on the
petitioner to choose an arbitrator from the said list, this petition was no
longer maintainable. He relies, for the purpose, on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd..1
He also submits that a mechanism, similar to that in the present case,
was specifically held, by the Supreme Court in Central Organization
for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) 2, to be in
accordance with law and not to infract Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act
or the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband
Network Ltd. v. United Telecom Ltd. 3 and Perkins Eastman
Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Limited 4. As such, submits
Mr. Mehta, the present petition is not maintainable any further, and the
petitioner would be required to select an arbitrator from the list of five
arbitrators, provided by the respondent under cover of its letter dated
12th August, 2020.
Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019
15. Mr. Mehta submits that once the respondent had provided a list
of arbitrators to the petitioner on 12th August, 2020, and called on the
petitioner to choose an arbitrator from the said list, this petition was no
longer maintainable. He relies, for the purpose, on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd..1
He also submits that a mechanism, similar to that in the present case,
was specifically held, by the Supreme Court in Central Organization
for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) 2, to be in
accordance with law and not to infract Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act
or the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband
Network Ltd. v. United Telecom Ltd. 3 and Perkins Eastman
Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Limited 4. As such, submits
Mr. Mehta, the present petition is not maintainable any further, and the
petitioner would be required to select an arbitrator from the list of five
arbitrators, provided by the respondent under cover of its letter dated
12th August, 2020.
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019
15. Mr. Mehta submits that once the respondent had provided a list
of arbitrators to the petitioner on 12th August, 2020, and called on the
petitioner to choose an arbitrator from the said list, this petition was no
longer maintainable. He relies, for the purpose, on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd..1
He also submits that a mechanism, similar to that in the present case,
was specifically held, by the Supreme Court in Central Organization
for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) 2, to be in
accordance with law and not to infract Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act
or the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband
Network Ltd. v. United Telecom Ltd. 3 and Perkins Eastman
Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Limited 4. As such, submits
Mr. Mehta, the present petition is not maintainable any further, and the
petitioner would be required to select an arbitrator from the list of five
arbitrators, provided by the respondent under cover of its letter dated
12th August, 2020.
Datar Switchgears Ltd vs Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr on 18 October, 2000
15. Mr. Mehta submits that once the respondent had provided a list
of arbitrators to the petitioner on 12th August, 2020, and called on the
petitioner to choose an arbitrator from the said list, this petition was no
longer maintainable. He relies, for the purpose, on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd..1
He also submits that a mechanism, similar to that in the present case,
was specifically held, by the Supreme Court in Central Organization
for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) 2, to be in
accordance with law and not to infract Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act
or the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband
Network Ltd. v. United Telecom Ltd. 3 and Perkins Eastman
Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Limited 4. As such, submits
Mr. Mehta, the present petition is not maintainable any further, and the
petitioner would be required to select an arbitrator from the list of five
arbitrators, provided by the respondent under cover of its letter dated
12th August, 2020.
Union Of India & Anr vs Premco - Dkspl (Jv) & Ors on 25 July, 2016
Where such a time period was contained in the arbitration
agreement between the parties, the Supreme Court, in U.O.I. v.
Premco-DKSPL (JV) 7 held, in unmistakable terms, that "the terms of
the agreement bind the parties unless they have chosen to repudiate
5
(2006) 2 SCC 638
6
(2007) 7 SCC 684
7
(2016) 14 SCC 651
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 234/2020 Page 12 of 16
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:21.01.2021
19:02:22
the same".
Northn. Rly. Admn., Min.Of Railway, N.D vs Patel Engineering Company Ltd on 18 August, 2008
In a similar vein, Arijit Pasayat, J., heading a bench of
three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, observed, in Northern
Railway Administration v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. 8, that "a bare
reading of the scheme of Section 11 shows that the emphasis is on the
terms of the agreement being adhered to and/or given effect as closely
as possible". This is no more than a judicial recapitulation of Section
11(6), for the applicability of which "failure", on the part of a party,
"to act as required under" the agreed procedure for appointment of the
arbitrator, is the statutory sine qua non.
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs M/S. Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co. ... on 13 August, 2007
23. The Supreme Court did, in certain later decisions, hold that,
even where the notice invoking arbitration called on the opposite party
to appoint its arbitrator within 30 days, the right to appoint the
arbitrator continued till the first party approached the Court under
Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, notably in Punj Lloyd Ltd. v. Petronet
MHB Ltd.5 and U.O.I. v Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd.6
in which, despite the notice invoking arbitration calling on the
opposite party to appoint its arbitrator, the right of the opposite party
to do so was held to stand forfeited only on the first party approaching
the Court under Section 11(6), following Datar Switchgears Ltd.1.
Those, however, were not cases in which a period for appointing of
arbitrator, reckoned from the issuance of the notice invoking
arbitrator, was contained in the arbitration agreement between the
parties.
1