Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019
11. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme
Court regarding the proviso to Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, there is
no scope for entertaining the submission that the petitioner had, by his
conduct, impliedly waived its right under Section 12(5) of the A&C
Act. The waiver under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act has to be by an
express agreement in writing. The contention that the Arbitrator was
appointed by the Chief Engineer, DSIIDC pursuant to the request of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:Dushyant Rawal
Signing Date:28.02.2022 O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 12/2022 Page 5 of 9
the petitioner to appoint an arbitrator is of little relevance when one
considers the case of Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United
Telecoms Limited (supra). In that case the arbitrator was, in fact,
appointed by the appellant who had then sought to challenge the same
as being in violation of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
Trf Ltd. vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. & Anr. on 17 February, 2017
In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. v.
Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (supra), a person who is ineligible
to act as an arbitrator would also be ineligible to appoint an arbitrator.
Thus, clearly, the Chief Engineer, DSIIDC was not empowered to
appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the GCC. The
contention that the petitioner is precluded from raising any objections
on this ground as the petitioner had participated in the arbitral
proceedings, is also unmerited. Section 12(5) of the A&C Act clearly
provides that waiver of any right under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act
is required to be by an Agreement in writing, entered into after the
disputes had arisen.
Section 15 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Kanodia Infratech Limited vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited on 8 November, 2021
16. This Court also has reservations regarding the decision in
Kanodia Infratech Limited v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited
(supra) in respect of the reasons stated to distinguish the decision of
Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd. (supra).
However, it is not necessary to dilate on the same as the said decision
is indisputably not applicable to a petition under Section 14 of the
A&C Act.
Section 7 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Proddatur Cable Tv Digi Services vs Siti Cable Network Limited on 20 January, 2020
4. On 19.02.2020, the Chief Engineer, DSIIDC appointed Sh. D.S.
Pandit, IAS (Retired) as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties. The Arbitral Tribunal held its first hearing on
13.03.2020. It is stated that several hearings have been held before the
Arbitral Tribunal thereafter. DSIIDC states that the petitioner had
participated in the arbitral proceedings without any reservation.
However, the petitioner has now filed the present petition on
21.01.2022 seeking termination of the mandate of the learned
Arbitrator on the ground that he is ineligible to act as an Arbitrator in
view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. v. Energo
Engineering Projects Ltd.: (2017) 8 SCC 377 and Perkins Eastman
Architects DPC and Ors. v. HSCC (India) Limited: AIR 2020 SC 59
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:Dushyant Rawal
Signing Date:28.02.2022 O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 12/2022 Page 2 of 9
and, a decision of this Court in Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services v.
Citi Cable Network Limited: (2020) 267 DLT 51.