Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.22 seconds)Section 21 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S Deep Trading Company vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation & Ors on 22 March, 2013
20. Similarly, the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel
for the applicant in Deep Trading Company v. Indian Oil Corporation
(supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the
17
said case, the applicant therein has requested the opposite party to
appoint an arbitrator as per the agreed procedure. Since the opposite
party failed to as per the request of the applicant, the application under
Section 11(6) was filed and thereafter, appointed an arbitrator. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appointment so made is of no
consequence and the right of the opposite party to appoint is lost once
application for appointment is made to Court. But in instant case, as
already supra, no request was made to the respondent by the applicant
for appointment of arbitrator, as per Clause 34 of the SCA. As such,
this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Datar Switchgears Ltd vs Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr on 18 October, 2000
In Ace Pipeline Contracts Private Limited v. Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited (2007 (2) ARBLR49 (SC); Datar
Switchgears Ltd., (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that in cases arising under Section 11(6) of the Act, if the
opposite party has not made an appointment within 30 days of
demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues,
but an appointment has to be made before the former files application
under Section 11 of the Act, seeking appointment of a arbitrator and
only then the right of the opposite party ceases. In the instant, as
already observed supra, the 30 days period would start from the date of
failure of amicable settlement i.e., from 03.09.2014, the date on which,
the respondent addressed letter stating so to the applicant and not
from 28.07.2014 and 11.08.2014, as alleged by the applicant.
Ace Pipeline Contracts Private Limited vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 4 April, 2007
In Ace Pipeline Contracts Private Limited v. Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited (2007 (2) ARBLR49 (SC); Datar
Switchgears Ltd., (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that in cases arising under Section 11(6) of the Act, if the
opposite party has not made an appointment within 30 days of
demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues,
but an appointment has to be made before the former files application
under Section 11 of the Act, seeking appointment of a arbitrator and
only then the right of the opposite party ceases. In the instant, as
already observed supra, the 30 days period would start from the date of
failure of amicable settlement i.e., from 03.09.2014, the date on which,
the respondent addressed letter stating so to the applicant and not
from 28.07.2014 and 11.08.2014, as alleged by the applicant.
Section 6 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Amending Act, 1897
Voltas Ltd vs Rolta India Ltd on 14 February, 2014
26. The communication must be addressed to all the concerned
parties if appointment of Arbitrator is routed through them and/or if
the agreement provides for. It does not consider it necessary that the
communication is addressed to all the concerned parties
simultaneously. It is sufficient if it is communicated in the first
instance to any of them and thereafter to the others. (see Voltas Limited
v. Rolta India Limited [2010 Indlaw MUM 1672].
Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd And Etc on 15 March, 2018
28. The provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 (with effect from
23.10.2015) cannot have retrospective operation in the arbitral
proceedings already commenced unless the parties agree otherwise.
(see Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private
Limited [(2018) 6 SCC 287].
Sp Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 December, 2018
In S.P.Singla Constructions (P) Ltd.,
v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2019 (2) SCC 488], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while placing reliance on the judgment of Board of
21
Control for Cricket in India (supra) held that Section 12(5) of the Act
does not apply to the case therein, since the arbitral proceedings
commenced back in 2013, much prior to the commencement of
Amendment Act on 23.10.2015.