Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.51 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 20 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Sharma And Sons vs Engineer-In-Chief, Army Headquarters ... on 17 November, 1999
In Sharma & Sons vs. Engineer-in-Chief, Army
Headquarters, New Delhi & Ors. [2000 (2) Arb.LR 31 (AP)],
the respondents were requested on 26.6.95, 6.8.95 and other
dates in 1997 to appoint an arbitrator. Application under
Section 11 was filed after nearly 4 years on 21.4.99. Only
thereafter the respondent appointed an arbitrator on
13.5.99, but only in respect of some of the disputes. The
respondent felt that the other disputes were outside the
ambit of the arbitration clause. The High Court of Andhra
pradesh held that in view of Section 11(6) read with Section
11(8) the respondent had forfeited his right to appoint an
arbitrator after the expiry of 30 days from the date of
demand for arbitrator. Even in the above case, the
appointment was not made before the application under
Section 11 was filed. Hence, the case is not applicable to
the facts of this case.
Sh.Bhupinder Singh Bindra vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 July, 1995
While interpreting the power of the Court to appoint
arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940,
this Court in Bhupinder Singh Bindra Vs. Union of India and
Another (1995) 5 SCC 329, in para 3 held as under:-
Naginbhai C. Patel vs Union Of India on 23 December, 1998
The appellant contended that the 1st respondent did
not appoint the Arbitrator within a reasonable period and
that amounts to failure of the procedure contemplated under
the Agreement. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the
Bombay High Court reported in 1999(2) Bombay CR. 189
(Naginbhai C. Patel Vs. Union of India). There, the
petitioner, a Govt. Contractor, as per the form of the
Arbitration clause requested the Secretary P.W.D to appoint
the arbitrator. The Secretary, P.W.D. did not take any
action and the petitioner filed an application under Section
11(6) of the Act. After the filing of this application, the
respondent appointed an Arbitrator and urged before the
Chief Justice that application under Section 11(6) filed by
the petitioner became infructuous. It was held that the
petitioner had waited for 30 days for appointment of the
arbitrator and as the respondent had failed to appoint the
arbitrator the objection was not sustainable and the
appointment of arbitrator made by the respondent was not
valid in the eye of law.
1