ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 4 OF 1986
12 Apr 2013The petition filed under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, sought to challenge an interim award and certain directions issued by the so...
Search Results for "Arbitration Act, 1940"
458 result(s) found
Found 458 result(s)
High Court
Bombay High Court Considers Maintainability Objection Under Section 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Petition Challenging Arbitral Award. Preliminary Objection Centers on Whether Prior Section 9 Application in Baroda Court and Lack of Cause of Action Oust High Court's Jurisdiction to Entertain Section 34 Petition.
5 Jun 2006The petitioner, Ion Exchange (India) Ltd., challenged an arbitral award directing it to pay certain amounts to the respondent, Paramount Limited, by f...
High Court
Bombay High Court Makes Arbitration Award Rule of Court in Favour of Petitioner Despite Pending Supreme Court Appeal. No Stay of Execution Obtained by Respondent, Award Enforceable Under Section 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940.
21 Jun 2006The petitioner, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., filed an Arbitration Petition under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking to make an arb...
- 97
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Non-Disclosure of Arbitrators' Names Under Chamber Rules. Rule III(3) of Indian Chamber of Commerce Rules Upheld Not Violative of Arbitration Act, 1940.
15 Sep 1969The dispute arose from a contract dated 1964 between the appellant, Union Textile Traders, and the respondent, Shri Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd., for the...
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Arbitrator Under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Respondent Failed to Appoint Arbitrator Within 30 Days as Per Agreement. The court appointed a retired judge as sole arbitrator after the respondent's belated appointment did not cure the initial failure.
9 Apr 2013The applicant, Bombay Intelligence Security (India) Ltd., entered into an agreement with the respondent, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., on 14th N...
- 26
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Appointment of Arbitrator in Defence Contract Dispute Over Encashment of Warranty Bond. The court held that the claims were not barred by limitation as bilateral discussions continued until 2019, and the arbitration clause covered the dispute.
18 May 2023The petitioner, a Swiss company engaged in arms manufacturing, entered into a contract with the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, for supply o...
- 142
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to Arbitral Award in Contract Dispute — Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Artson Engineering Ltd. — Court upholds award under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, finding no grounds for interference as arbitrator's findings were based on evidence and within jurisdiction.
9 Nov 2006The petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., challenged an arbitral award dated 30.6.2005 made by the learned sole Arbitrator, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.B...
- 138
High Court
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Decides Challenge to Arbitral Award in Reclamation Work Contract Dispute. Petition Filed Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Seeking to Set Aside Award for Alleged Procedural Irregularities.
1 Apr 2015The petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust challeng...
- 12
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Arbitration Act Case – Delhi Court Has Jurisdiction Over Section 20 Application. Application Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 Not an 'Application' Within Section 31(4) Barring Subsequent Section 20 Application.
22 Apr 1969The case concerned a dispute arising from a construction contract between the Union of India and the respondent, Surjeet Singh Atwal. The agreement, e...
- 149
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Application for Appointment of Arbitrator in MOU Dispute — Clause Providing for 'Alternative' Arbitration by Mutual Consent Not a Binding Arbitration Agreement. The Court held that Clause 10 of the MOU did not contain a binding arbitration agreement as it made arbitration contingent on future mutual consent and was not mandatory, thereby rejecting the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
30 Sep 2014The Applicant filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve ...
- 175
