Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.30 seconds)Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 17 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
India Hosiery Works vs Bharat Woollen Mills Ltd. on 6 February, 1953
In India Hosiery Works Vs. Bharat Woollen Mills Ltd.
AIR 1953 Cal. 488, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
observed
"an arbitration agreement neither specifying the
number of arbitrators, nor specifying the mode of
appointment, is perfectly effective and valid and the
incidents of such an agreement are that it is to take
effect as an agreement for reference to a sole
arbitrator, to be appointed by consent of the parties
or, where the parties do not concur in making an
appointment, to be appointed by the Court, except
where the operation of Rule 1 of the First Schedule is
excluded.
Teamco Private Ltd. vs T.M.S. Mani on 18 February, 1966
[emphasis supplied]
The view was reiterated by another Division Bench of the
same High Court in M/s. Teamco Private Ltd. Vs. T.M.S.
Mani AIR 1967 Cal. 168.
Om Prakash vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 30 July, 1962
A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad held in Om
Prakash Vs. Union of India AIR 1963 All. 242 that a reference
to arbitrator out of Court must be by both the parties together
and cannot be by one party alone; failing the consent, the
parties or either of them must approach the Court by making an
application in writing.
The Union Of India (Uoi) vs Mangaldas N. Varma on 18 November, 1957
Consent, of course, is of the very essence of arbitration
said a Division Bench of Madras High Court in The Union of
India Vs. Mangaldas N. Varma, Bombay AIR 1958 Mad. 296.