Judgments - Arbitration
KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI & ANR. VERSUS KOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. & ANR.
MEENA VERSUS DELHI TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
PRAVIN ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS GALAXY INFRA AND ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.
HOYA MEDICAL INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS EVEREST VISION
LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD. & ORS VERSUS GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED
M/S SHAWL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIAUNION OF INDIA
M/S T.K. ENGINEERING CONSORTIUM PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DIRECTOR (PROJECTS) RITES LTD. & ANR
AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS RAVINDRANATH RAO SINDHIA & ANR.
GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VERSUS BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Versus M/S NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
HERO ELECTRIC VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR VERSUS LECTRO E-MOBILITY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
NARENDER SINGH VERSUS V.V. PANKAJAKSHAN & ORS
NORTH EAST ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION VERSUS BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER AND POLYMER LIMITED
C & C CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. VERSUS IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.
HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED VERSUS M S DEEP AUTOMOBILES & ANR
M/S CINEPOLIS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S SARITA MULTIPLEXS PVT. LTD.
M/s. HCL Technologies Limited Vs. Madhya Pradesh Computerization of Police Society (MPCOPS)
Law Laid Down:- Appointment of Arbitrator u/S 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Arbitration Clause 1.23 (Dispute Resolution) and sub-clause (a) whereof stipulating to first exhaust the inhouse mechanism of dispute resolution – Governance Procedure in Clause 2.5.3 of the Agreement does not provide issuing disputed notice in a particular format - Applicant invoked Clause 1.23 of the Agreement proposing the name of arbitrator to resolve the dispute – Non-applicant failed to respond to the request Full Judgment
Yashwardhan Raghuwanshi Vs. District & Sessions Judge and another
Law Laid Down:- As seen from the language employed in the definition clause of “Court” in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act,1996, the Legislature intended to confer power in respect of the disputes involving arbitration on the highest judicial Court of the District so as to minimize the supervisory role of the Courts in the arbitral process and, therefore, purposely excluded any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Full Judgment