Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.34 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Roop Chand vs State Of Punjab on 10 October, 1962
51. Be it noted in the said case, reference was made
to Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti v. State of U.P.,
which followed the decision in Roop Chand v. State of
Punjab. It is seemly to note here that the said principle
has been followed in Indore Vikas Pradhikaran.
The Amending Act, 1897
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc & Anr vs Hscc India Limited on 17 March, 2023
21. But, in our view that has to be the logical
deduction from TRF Limited. Paragraph 50 of the
decision shows that this Court was concerned with the
issue, “whether the Managing Director, after becoming
ineligible by operation of law, is he still eligible to
nominate an Arbitrator” The ineligibility referred to
therein, was as a result of operation of law, in that a
person having an interest in the dispute or in the outcome
or decision thereof, must not only be ineligible to act as
an arbitrator but must also not be eligible to appoint
anyone else as an arbitrator and that such person cannot
and should not have any role in charting out any course to
the dispute resolution by having the power to appoint an
arbitrator. The next sentences in the paragraph, further
show that cases where both the parties could nominate
respective arbitrators of their choice were found to be
completely a different situation. The reason is clear that
whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an
arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by
equal power with the other party. But, in a case where
only one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its
16/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) No.335 of 2022
choice will always have an element of exclusivity in
determining or charting the Arbitration Application No.32
of 2019 Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC
(India) Ltd. course for dispute resolution. Naturally, the
person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of
the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole
arbitrator. That has to be taken as the essence of the
amendments brought in by the Arbitration and
Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 3 of 2016) and
recognised by the decision of this Court in TRF Limited.”
Therefore, the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it clear that
the appointment of arbitrator unilaterally by one of the parties would be
ineligible by operation of law.
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019
“16. However, the point that has been urged,
relying upon the decision of this Court in Walter Bau AG
and TRF Limited, requires consideration. In the present
case Clause 24 empowers the Chairman and Managing
Director of the respondent to make the appointment of a
sole arbitrator and said Clause also stipulates that no
person other than a person appointed by such Chairman
and Managing Director of the respondent would act as an
7/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) No.335 of 2022
arbitrator. In TRF Limited, a Bench of three Judges of this
Court, was called upon to consider whether the
appointment of an arbitrator made by the Managing
Director of the respondent therein was a valid one and
whether at that stage an application moved under Section
11(6) of the Act could be entertained by the Court. The
relevant Clause, namely, Clause 33 which provided for
resolution of disputes in that case was under:
State Of Orissa & Others vs Commissioner Of Land Records & ... on 27 August, 1998
In
this regard, our attention has been drawn to a two-Judge
Bench decision in State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land
Records & Settlement. In the said case, the question
arose, can the Board of Revenue revise the order passed
11/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) No.335 of 2022
by its delegate. Dwelling upon the said proposition, the
Court held: (SCC p. 173, para 25)
“25. We have to note that the
Commissioner when he exercises power of the
Board delegated to him under Section 33 of the
Settlement Act, 1958, the order passed by him
is to be treated as an order of the Board of
Revenue and not as that of the Commissioner
in his capacity as Commissioner. This position
is clear from two rulings of this Court to which
we shall presently refer.
Behari Kunj Sahkari Avas Samiti vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 July, 2008
51. Be it noted in the said case, reference was made
to Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti v. State of U.P.,
which followed the decision in Roop Chand v. State of
Punjab. It is seemly to note here that the said principle
has been followed in Indore Vikas Pradhikaran.