Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.32 seconds)Section 77 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Ravindra Kumar Verma vs M/S. Bptp Ltd. & Anr. on 18 November, 2014
In Ravindra Kumar Verma case, this Court had stated that any doubt
on the aspect of whether conciliation proceedings, as required by the
arbitration clause, is directory or mandatory in nature, is removed when
reference is placed on Section 77 of the Act, which reads as under :
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Demerara Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs Demerara Distilleries Ltd. on 24 November, 2014
Ltd. v. Demerara Distilleries Ltd. and this Court, in its judgment
in Ravindra Kumar Verma v. BPTP Ltd., opined that relegation of
the parties to the avenue of amicable resolution, when the Court is
moved under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, would be unjustified,
where such relegation would merely be in the nature of an empty
formality. The arbitration clause in the present case does not
envisage any formal regimen or protocol for amicable resolution,
such as issuance of a notice in that regard and completion of any
stipulated time period thereafter, before which arbitral
proceedings could be invoked.
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Subhash Infraengineers Pvt Ltd vs Ntpc Ltd on 17 April, 2023
15. Also, in Subhash Infraengineers (supra), it has been held as
under:
Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj vs Union Of India on 17 March, 2009
In Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj case, the court was considering an
arbitration agreement wherein the contractor was first to raise the dispute
with the Superintending Engineer, and in case the Superintending
Engineer fails to give his instructions or ―decision in writing‖ or the
contractor is dissatisfied with such instructions or decision, the contractor
was to appeal the same to the Chief Engineer, ―who shall afford an
opportunity to the contractor to be heard, if the latter so desires, and to
offer evidence in support of his appeal‖. The Chief Engineer was
thereafter to give his ―decision‖ within a period of 30 days of receipt of
contractor's appeal. It was only thereafter that the contractor could invoke
the arbitration. In such circumstances, the court held that the contractor
must follow the procedure prescribed before approaching the court under
Section 11 of the Act. In the said case, therefore, the procedure prescribed
was multitiered and arbitration was to be invoked on failure of the
previous stages of the said procedure.‖
7
2009 SCC OnLine Del 4355
M/S Oasis Projects Ltd vs Managing Director, National Highway ... on 7 February, 2023
14. The judgment in the case Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj v. Union of
India7, relied upon by the respondent has been specifically
distinguished in Oasis Projects (supra) as under:
Kunwar Narayan vs Ms Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd And Anr on 10 February, 2021
In Kunwar Narayana v. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd., this Court relied
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Demarara Distilleries Pvt.
Ltd. v. Demerara Distilleries Ltd. and the decision of this Court
in Ravindra Kumar Verma v. BPTP Ltd., held as under:--