Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (2.33 seconds)Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019
Bharat Broadband vs. United Telecoms; (2019) 5 SCC 755 : The
arbitration clause in the agreement provided for the arbitration to be
referred to the sole arbitration of the CMD of the appellant and if the
CMD is unwilling to act as such, then to the sole arbitration of some
26
other person appointed by the CMD. There was also no agreement in
writing under the proviso to section 12(5) and more important, the party
who had unilaterally nominated sought termination of the mandate.
Moreover, the appellant Bharat Broadband filed a petition immediately
after the judgment in TRF. This would appear from paragraph 20 of the
Report which records that the Managing Director of the appellants was
not aware that the arbitrator could not appointed by the MD under
section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule which only became clear after
the declaration of the law by the Supreme Court in TRF. The said
paragraph also notes that the moment the appellant came to know of the
invalidity of the arbitrator's appointment, it filed an application before
the sole arbitrator for termination of his mandate. The contract in this
case was also entered into before the amendment of 23.10.2015 and the
involved a persona designata with the power to nominate an arbitrator in
his place.
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 14 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Trf Ltd vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd on 3 July, 2017
51. The other decisions are
TRF vs Energo ; (2017) 8 SCC 377 : The arbitration agreement provided
for the Managing Director of the respondent or his nominee to be
appointed as an arbitrator. Hence, this was a case of the arbitrator as
persona designate with the power to nominate an arbitrator in his place.
This was also a case under section 11 of the 1996 Act and the contract
was entered into before the amendment brought into the 1996 Act with
effect from 23.10.2015. There was also no express agreement in writing
under the proviso to section 12 (5) of the Act.
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019
46. The decision of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC
vs. HSCC (India) Limited; (2020) 20 SCC 760, involved a Dispute Resolution
clause whereby the disputes were to be referred to arbitration of a sole
arbitrator appointed by the CMD of the respondent before the Supreme
Court (HSCC). The Supreme Court relied on paragraph 50 of TRF to hold
that the CMD not only became ineligible to act as the arbitrator but was also
disqualified from nominating an arbitrator. The Supreme Court accordingly
annulled the appointment of the arbitrator and appointed a retired Judge of
the Supreme Court as the Sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes arising out
of the agreement executed between the parties subject to the mandatory
disqualification under the amended section 12 of the Act.
Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh ... vs M/S Ajay Sales And Suppliers on 9 September, 2021
Jaipur Zila Dugdh vs. Ajay Sales & Suppliers; AIR 2021 SC 4869 : The
arbitrator was again the Chairman of the appellant. The respondent
approached the High Court for an appointment of the arbitrator under
section 11 of the Act. There was no express agreement under the proviso
to section 12 (5) in these facts.
Yashovardhan Sinha Huf And Anr vs Satyatej Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd on 24 August, 2022
Yashovardhan Sinha vs. Satyatej Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd.; A.P. No. 156 of 2022: