Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
G. Ramachandra Reddy And Co. vs Chief Engineer, Madras Zone, Military ... on 29 April, 1994
18. The learned Counsel for the appellant rightly referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Ramachandra Reddy & Co. v. Chief Engineer, Madras Zone, Military Engineering Service (supra), and submitted that even under Section 8(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in such a situation, Court could appoint Arbitrators other than named persons in the arbitration clause. He rightly contended that the provisions of Sections 11(6) and (8) give wider jurisdiction to the Chief Justice that the provisions of Section 8 of the repealed Arbitration Act. In the aforesaid case the court held that when the notice was given to the opposite contracting party to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the contract and if no action had been taken, it must be deemed that he neglected to act upon the contract and the court gets jurisdiction and power to appoint an Arbitrator. The Court observed that "notice was an intimation to the opposite contracting party to act upon the terms of the contract and his/its non-availment entails the forfeiture of the power to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the contract."
Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Prafulla Kumar Sanyal on 27 October, 1978
21. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the procedure prescribed in the Arbitration Clause for appointing Arbitrator cannot be given a go-by. For this purpose, a reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sanyal . In that case it was contended that when arbitration agreement contains adequate and exhaustive machinery for appointment of Arbitrator, it must be construed as the Arbitrator having been appointed under sub-section (4) of Section 20. Dealing with this contention, and after referring to its earlier decision in the case of M/s. Shamji Kalidas & Co. . The Supreme Court held that the said decision did not consider whether under Section 20(4) the Court is bound to appoint an Arbitrator who has actually not been appointed but for whose appointment adequate and exhaustive machinery has been provided for. The Court negatived the said contention by holding (in paragraphs 4 and 5) as under :
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
1