Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)
Pradeep Vinod Construction Co vs Union Of India on 13 January, 2023 cites

Ellora Paper Mills Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2022

11. Mr. Haider objects to this procedure, relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ellora Paper Mills Limited vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh2. He submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6400 of 2016, was considered by the Court in the said decision and the Court, nevertheless, came to the conclusion that the unilateral appointment of an arbitral tribunal composed of officers of the government was contrary to the judgments of the Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 80 - M R Shah - Full Document

Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh ... vs M/S Ajay Sales And Suppliers on 9 September, 2021

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000302 cited its decision in Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited vs. Ajay Sales & Suppliers4, which in turn referred to several earlier judgments of the Court, including Voestalpine Schienen GMBH vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited5, TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited6, and Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs. United Telecoms Limited7. The Supreme Court, in Ellora8, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and appointed a former judge of the Supreme Court to act as an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 27 - M R Shah - Full Document

M/S Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 30 September, 2016

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000302 cited its decision in Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited vs. Ajay Sales & Suppliers4, which in turn referred to several earlier judgments of the Court, including Voestalpine Schienen GMBH vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited5, TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited6, and Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs. United Telecoms Limited7. The Supreme Court, in Ellora8, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and appointed a former judge of the Supreme Court to act as an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 290 - Full Document

Trf Ltd. vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. & Anr. on 17 February, 2017

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000302 cited its decision in Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited vs. Ajay Sales & Suppliers4, which in turn referred to several earlier judgments of the Court, including Voestalpine Schienen GMBH vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited5, TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited6, and Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs. United Telecoms Limited7. The Supreme Court, in Ellora8, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and appointed a former judge of the Supreme Court to act as an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 201 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000302 cited its decision in Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited vs. Ajay Sales & Suppliers4, which in turn referred to several earlier judgments of the Court, including Voestalpine Schienen GMBH vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited5, TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited6, and Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs. United Telecoms Limited7. The Supreme Court, in Ellora8, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and appointed a former judge of the Supreme Court to act as an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 440 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Central Organisation For Railway ... vs M/S Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv) A Joint Venture ... on 17 December, 2019

13. In Voestalpine9, the Supreme Court permitted appointment of an arbitrator from a broadbased panel to be suggested by one of the parties. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification vs. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company10, on the other hand, suggests that the appointment of an arbitrator from a panel submitted by one of the parties is by itself a valid procedure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 210 - R Banumathi - Full Document

L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limted vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 31 October, 2022

In L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited14, also, this Court has come to a similar conclusion, relying upon Voestalpine15. In that case, both Voestalpine16 and Central Organisation17 were considered and it has been held that the respondent therein was not entitled to insist upon the nomination of an arbitrator from a panel of five names.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 3 - V K Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next