Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.05 seconds)
M/S S And S Construction Co vs Union Of India on 5 May, 2025 cites

M/S G.S. Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Ntpc Ltd. on 16 August, 2023

In this context, I may also refer to a recent judgment in G.S. Express Pvt. Ltd., (supra), where relying on the aforesaid judgments, this Court appointed the Arbitrator holding that Clause 7.3.1 of the Contract to the extent it limited the period for invoking arbitration to 06 months was unconscionable and void in light of Section 28(b) of 1872 Act. In light of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR ARB.P. 2018/2024 Page 6 of 7 Signing Date:10.05.2025 20:01:28 these judgments, this Court is unable to agree with learned counsel for the Respondent that Petitioner is precluded from invoking the Arbitration Clause only because it failed to seek invocation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the decision of DRC. Accordingly, I hold that the penultimate sub-paragraph of Clause 25 which reads, 'if the Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC) fails to give his decision within the aforesaid period or any party is dissatisfied with the decision of Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC), then either party may within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the decision of Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC), give notice to the Chief Engineer for appointment of arbitrator on prescribed proforma as per Appendix XV, failing which the said decision shall be final, binding and conclusive and not referable to adjudication by the arbitrator', will not extinguish the right of the Petitioner to approach this Court under Section 11 of 1996 Act for appointment of an Arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Y Khanna - Full Document

Grasim Industries Ltd. vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2017

In Grasim Industries Limited v. State of Kerala, (2018) 14 SCC 265, dealing with a similar issue where the Respondent declined to refer the matter to arbitration on the ground that Appellant had not invoked arbitration within the time stipulated in the Arbitration Agreement. Referring to Section 28(b) of 1872 Act, the Supreme Court held that the said provision unequivocally provides that an agreement, which extinguishes the right of a party on expiry of the specified period, would be void and therefore, even if a restricted period for raising an arbitral dispute is provided for, the same would be treated as void.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 9 - Cited by 20 - J S Khehar - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. & Anr on 21 March, 1997

42. Before the amendment of Section 28 in 1997, the agreements reducing the period of limitation were distinguished from those which did not limit the time within which a party might enforce his rights, but which provided for a release or forfeiture of rights, if no suit was brought within the period stipulated in the agreement; and the latter class of agreements, being outside the scope of the section, were held to be binding between the parties. Thus, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. (AIR 1997 SC 2049), the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between an agreement which curtails the period of limitation and an agreement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR ARB.P. 2018/2024 Page 4 of 7 Signing Date:10.05.2025 20:01:28 which provides for forfeiture or waiver of the right itself, if no action is commenced within the period stipulated by the agreement. The first was held to be void as offending Section 28 but, the later was held not falling within the mischief of Section 28. Thus, it was held that curtailment of the period of limitation was not permissible in view of Section 28 but extinction of the right itself, unless exercised within the specified time, was permissible and can be enforced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 104 - Full Document

M/S. Chander Kant & Co. vs The Vice Chairman, Dda & Ors. on 26 May, 2009

In my view, the decision in Chander Kant & Co. (supra), squarely covers the objection raised by the respondent in the present petition. Accordingly, the penultimate sub paragraph of the Arbitration clause which provides that "if the any contractor(s) does/do not make any demand for arbitration in respect of any claim (s) in writing within 90 days of receiving the intimation from the MTNL, that the bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractor (s) will be demand to have been waived and absolutely barred and the MTNL shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims" is void.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 16 - N K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 Next