Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)

M/S. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & ... vs M/S. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd on 30 January, 2002

In a subsequent decision in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Rani Construction (P.) Ltd., 2001 (1) AWC 59 (SC) : (20OO) 8 SCC 159, the question had been again referred for consideration to larger Bench. The above reference was decided by five Judges Bench of the Apex Court and was in (2002) 2 SCC 388. It was held by the majority decision that the appointment of arbitrator by the Chief Justice or his designate is not a judicial function resulting in an adjudicatory order and thus not open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Section 11 of the Act does not contemplate a decision on any controversy that the other party may raise. It was also held by the Apex Court in the case Ador Samia (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 332 - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S. M.S. Sachdeva on 28 August, 2000

Relying on the above decisions, the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. M. S. Sachdeva, 20OO (4) AWC 2743 : 2OOO (40) ALR 804 and Union of India v. Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, 2001 (3) AWC 1912 : 2001 (41) ALR 192, held that the order passed under Section 11(6) of the Act appointing an arbitrator is not a judicial function, but administrative one.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1