Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 42 (0.50 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Trf Ltd. vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. & Anr. on 17 February, 2017
EX (COMM) 181/23
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. dt 23.05.2023 Page 17 of 43
Vs. Hanuman Prasad
"9. Promises, express and implied.--In so far as a proposal or
acceptance of any promise is made in words, the promise is said
to be express. In so far as such proposal or acceptance is made
otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be implied." It is
thus necessary that there be an "express" agreement in writing.
This agreement must be an agreement by which both parties,
with full knowledge of the fact that Shri Khan is ineligible to be
appointed as an arbitrator, still go ahead and say that they have
full faith and confidence in him to continue as such. The facts of
the present case disclose no such express agreement. The
appointment letter which is relied upon by the High Court as
indicating an express agreement on the facts of the case is dated
17.01.2017. On this date, the Managing Director of the
appellant was certainly not aware that Shri Khan could not be
appointed by him as Section 12(5) read with the Seventh
Schedule only went to the invalidity of the appointment of the
Managing Director himself as an arbitrator. Shri Khan's invalid
appointment only became clear after the declaration of the law
by the Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. (supra) which, as we have
seen hereinabove, was only on 03.07.2017.
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc & Anr vs Hscc India Limited on 17 March, 2023
In Proddatur Cable TV
Digi Services v. Siti Cable Network Limited (2020)
267 DLT 51, the learned Single Judge of this
Court, following the decision in TRF Ltd. v.
Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (supra) and
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC
(India) Ltd. (supra), held that unilateral
appointment of an arbitrator by a party is
impermissible."