Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S. Mehul Construction Co on 21 August, 2000
The Division Bench, however, did not have the advantage of the two judgments of the Konkan Railway Corporation (supra) and which were, therefore, not considered by the Division Bench. It is therefore, not possible to accept the submission of the petitioner that the present petition can lie.
M/S. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & ... vs M/S. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd on 30 January, 2002
6. That apart, Mr. Chinoy raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition itself. He took us through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Mehul Construction Co. (hereinafter referred to as "the Mehul Construction judgment") which was subsequently approved by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Rani Construction judgment"). In the Mehul Construction judgment (supra), the Apex Court has in terms observed on page 207 in Para-4 of (2000) 7 S.C.C. as follows:--
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Open Sea Maritimes Inc. vs R. Pyarelal International Pvt. Ltd. on 10 December, 1998
He then referred to a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Open Sea Maritimes Inc. v. R. Pyarelal International Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1999(2) Mh.LJ. 1 = 1999(2) Arb. LR 383 (Bombay) and the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Talwar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and ors. v. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. reported in 2002 Arb. W.L.J. 520 referring to the judgment in the case of Open Sea Maritimes Inc. with approval. The learned Single Judge of this Court as well as the Division Bench held that where there was an agreement on the appointment procedure providing other means, those had to be respected.
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Datar Switchgears Ltd vs Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr on 18 October, 2000
4. Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, principally submitted that under Section 15(2) of the said Act where the mandate of an Arbitrator terminated, the vacancy is to be filled in accordance with the rules which were applicable to the appointment of the Arbitrator being replaced. In the instant case, under Clause 19 of the Agreement, if the Arbitrator appointed by a party refuses to act, the Arbitrator appointed by the other party was entitled to function as the Sole Arbitrator and this aspect has been ignored by the learned Judge. The submission of Dr. Tulzapurkar is that under Section 15(2) itself the provision under Clause 19 of the present Agreement has been saved and thereunder the Arbitrator appointed was to act as the Sole Arbitrator. There was no occasion to appoint Shri Jain as the substitute Arbitrator by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, there was no further occasion to appoint the third Arbitrator or Umpire by moving an Application under Section 11(6) of the said Act. Dr. Tulzapurkar pressed into service the observations of the Apex Court in Para-23 of the judgment in the case of Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. and Anr. wherein the Apex Court has observed that when the parties have entered into a contract and settled on a procedure, due importance has to be given to such procedure. In the present case, it had been clearly provided under Clause 19 of the Agreement that if the Arbitrator appointed by one party refused to act, the Arbitrator appointed by the other party was to function as the Sole Arbitrator had to be permitted to proceed further. He relied upon an order of a Single Judge of this Court (Coram: M.B. Shah, C. J. as he then was in this Court) in the case of Smt. Satya Kailashchandra Sahu and Ors. v. M/s Vidarbha Distillers, Nagpur and Ors. acting under Section 11 of the said Act and particularly the observations in Para 13 of this order wherein the learned Chief Justice has observed that when a named person refuses to act as Arbitrator, then the procedure, which is required to be followed, is provided in Section 11 of the said Act. It is thereafter stated that if the named person refuses to act as Arbitrator, the arbitration clause is not wiped out but what is exhausted is the authority of the named person to act as Arbitrator. In the submission of Dr. Tulzapurkar, the arbitration clause very much remained thereunder that only a sole Arbitrator could proceed. He emphasized the observations of the learned Chief Justice in Para 14 of this order that Sections 15 and 11(6) are to be read together.
1