Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)Maruthi Apartments Owners/Residents ... vs K.V.Narasimhan on 21 March, 2019
The case of Maruthi Apartments Vs. K. V.
Narasimhan, O.P. Diary No. 116747/2018, decided on
21.03.2019 referred by the respondents is distinguishable
on the facts. In that case, the entire arbitral records
pertaining to the award were made available to the Court.
The Court after perusing the record found that the
impugned award were sent to the petitioner by speed post
with acknowledgment due vide postal receipts bearing
reference and the same was returned with the Postal
Department 'refused'. Even, the notices of the proceedings
also returned with the postal endorsement 'refused'. In the
instant case there is no evidence, receipt or
acknowledgment of the impugned award.
Union Of India vs Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors on 16 March, 2005
In the case of Union of India Vs. Tecco
Trichy Engineers (supra), it was held that delivery of an
arbitral award under Section 31 (5) of the Act is not a
matter of mere formality. It is a matter of substance.
Dulal Poddar vs Executive Engineer, Dona Canal ... on 12 November, 2003
In the case of Dulal Podda Vs. Executive Engineer,
Dona Canal Division, 2004 (1) SCC 73, it was held that
the appointment of an Arbitrator at the behest of the one
party without sending notice to the other party /
respondent, ex parte award given by the Arbitrator is
illegal and liable to be set aside.
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
In the case of Associate Builders Vs. DDA, (2015) 3
SCC 49, it was held that the interference with an arbitral
award is permissible only when the findings of the
Arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse or when the
conscience of the Court is shocked or when patent
illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
In
the case of Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co.
Ltd Vs. NHAI, 2019 SCC Online SC 677, it was held that
under Section 34 (2A) of the Act, a decision, which is
perverse while no longer being a ground for challenge
under "public policy of India" would certainly amount to a
patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.
Bhanumati Jaisukhbhai Bhuta vs Ivory Properties And Hotels Pvt Ltd And ... on 28 January, 2020
In the case of Bhanumati J. Bhuta Vs. Ivory
Properties & Hotels Pvt Ltd, 2020 SCC Online Bombay
157, it was held that the arbitral proceedings commence in
respect of dispute when notice invoking of arbitration
agreement is received by other side and not when such
notice is only served upon the Arbitral Tribunal. The onus
is on the applicant who had issued such notice to prove the
delivery of such notice upon the other side.
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019
29. The Supreme Court in the case of Perkins Eastman
OMP No. 73/19 IVL Matriculation Vs. Edu Smart Pvt Ltd & Ors Page No.18 of 22
Architects DPC & Anr Vs. HSCC Ind Ltd, 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 1517 has held that in a case where only one
party has a right to appoint a sole Arbitrator, its choice will
always have an element of exclusivity in determining or
charting the course for dispute resolution. The person who
has an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute
must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator.
Proddatur Cable Tv Digi Services vs Siti Cable Network Limited on 20 January, 2020
In the case of Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services vs.
Siti Cable Network Ltd., 2020 SCC Online Del 350,
following the ratio of the judgment in the case of Perkins
(supra), it was held that it is clear that a unilateral
appointment by an authority which is interested in the
outcome or decision of the dispute is impermissible in law.
When the Arbitration Clause empowers the Company to
appoint Sole Arbitrator, it can hardly be disputed that the
Company acting through its Board of Directors will have
an interest in the outcome of the dispute.