Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.43 seconds)Section 28 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & ... on 28 March, 1958
11. It is well settled that a mere apprehension that the Centre, which
consists of majority of nominees of Government, will appoint such
arbitrators who will have interest in Government which will result in bias
and is not well found. A mere apprehension that the Act is capable of being
misused is no ground to striking down the vires of the Act. It is now trite law
that sweeping attacks made on the likelihood of misuse of a Statute, in the
future, cannot possibly succeed. The occasion to complain only arises when
such alleged misuse occurs. (Refer to:Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain,
1975 Supp SCC 1;Dr B.N. Khare v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC
211; State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1 SCC 1 ; R.K.
Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538; T.K.
Musaliar v. Venkitachalam, AIR 1956 SC 246; Chitralekha v. State of
Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823; M.R. Deka v. N.E.F. Rly, AIR 1964 SC 600].
A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar vs M. Venkitachalam Potti And ... on 20 December, 1955
11. It is well settled that a mere apprehension that the Centre, which
consists of majority of nominees of Government, will appoint such
arbitrators who will have interest in Government which will result in bias
and is not well found. A mere apprehension that the Act is capable of being
misused is no ground to striking down the vires of the Act. It is now trite law
that sweeping attacks made on the likelihood of misuse of a Statute, in the
future, cannot possibly succeed. The occasion to complain only arises when
such alleged misuse occurs. (Refer to:Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain,
1975 Supp SCC 1;Dr B.N. Khare v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC
211; State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1 SCC 1 ; R.K.
Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538; T.K.
Musaliar v. Venkitachalam, AIR 1956 SC 246; Chitralekha v. State of
Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823; M.R. Deka v. N.E.F. Rly, AIR 1964 SC 600].
R. Chitralekha & Anr vs State Of Mysore & Ors on 29 January, 1964
11. It is well settled that a mere apprehension that the Centre, which
consists of majority of nominees of Government, will appoint such
arbitrators who will have interest in Government which will result in bias
and is not well found. A mere apprehension that the Act is capable of being
misused is no ground to striking down the vires of the Act. It is now trite law
that sweeping attacks made on the likelihood of misuse of a Statute, in the
future, cannot possibly succeed. The occasion to complain only arises when
such alleged misuse occurs. (Refer to:Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain,
1975 Supp SCC 1;Dr B.N. Khare v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC
211; State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1 SCC 1 ; R.K.
Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538; T.K.
Musaliar v. Venkitachalam, AIR 1956 SC 246; Chitralekha v. State of
Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823; M.R. Deka v. N.E.F. Rly, AIR 1964 SC 600].
Moti Ram Deka Etc vs General Manager, N.E.F. ... on 5 December, 1963
11. It is well settled that a mere apprehension that the Centre, which
consists of majority of nominees of Government, will appoint such
arbitrators who will have interest in Government which will result in bias
and is not well found. A mere apprehension that the Act is capable of being
misused is no ground to striking down the vires of the Act. It is now trite law
that sweeping attacks made on the likelihood of misuse of a Statute, in the
future, cannot possibly succeed. The occasion to complain only arises when
such alleged misuse occurs. (Refer to:Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain,
1975 Supp SCC 1;Dr B.N. Khare v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC
211; State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1 SCC 1 ; R.K.
Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538; T.K.
Musaliar v. Venkitachalam, AIR 1956 SC 246; Chitralekha v. State of
Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823; M.R. Deka v. N.E.F. Rly, AIR 1964 SC 600].
Hrd Corporation (Marcus Oil And ... vs Gail (India) Limited (Formerly Gas ... on 31 August, 2017
12. In the present case, if such misuse is to arise in the future, the
Arbitration Act, 1996 ensures there are remedies. Explanation to
Section12(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act mandates an
Arbitrator to disclose any past or present relationship with or interest in any
of the parties or in relation to the subject matter in dispute, whether
financial, business, professional or other kind, which is likely to give rise to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH W.P.(C) 1793/2020 Page 6 of 16
Signing Date:12.12.2022
12:46:05
Neutral Citation Number of W.P.(C)-1793/2020 : 2022/DHC/005472
justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in HRD Corpn. v. GAIL (India) Ltd., (2018) 12
SCC 471, expansively went through the provisions of the Section and
Schedule and observed as under: -
M/S Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 30 September, 2016
17. Furthermore, the principles governing arbitral independence under the
Arbitration Act have been delineated in Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v.
Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 4 SCC 665. In this case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court adjudged the propriety of the State creating a panel of
arbitrators for a proceeding it was a party to. While upholding the validity of
such a panel, the Supreme Court held as under: -