Search Results for "Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal"

161 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 161 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Arbitration Appointment Despite Limitation Bar — Scope of Section 11(6A) Confined to Existence of Arbitration Agreement. The 2015 Amendment Act restricts court's role to checking arbitration agreement existence, leaving limitation and other issues to arbitrator under Section 16.

The dispute arose from an agreement dated 21.12.2010 between M/s. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (Petitioner-Contractor) and Northern Co...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Hears Challenge to Arbitrator's Interlocutory Order on Summoning of Documents. Court Considers Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against Interlocutory Orders Under Articles 226 and 227 in Light of SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering.

The dispute arose between Dodballapur Integrated Textile Park Limited and the claimants, Vinod G. Jain and Premalatha G. Jain, under a sub-lease agree...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Neutral Arbitrator in Railway and Airport Authority Contracts — Unilateral Appointment Clause Invalid. Arbitration clause providing for appointment by General Manager or officer of the same entity violates Section 12(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The judgment concerns three matters: two arbitration applications and one arbitration petition, all raising a common question about the validity of ar...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Government Appeal in BOT Bridge Dispute. Court upholds arbitral award granting escalation costs and interest to contractor for owner's delay in providing right of way and toll collection issues.

The Government of Maharashtra, through the Executive Engineer, Alibag Public Works Division, filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and C...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitrator's Procedural Order in Arbitration Proceeding. Section 9 or Section 19 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Cannot Be Invoked to Challenge Arbitrator's Communication Regarding Procedure.

The petitioner, Sahyadri Earthmovers, filed an Arbitration Petition under Section 9 read with Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitral Award in Pipeline Construction Dispute. Court Upholds Arbitrator's Findings of Fact and Reduces Interest Rate from 18% to 12% Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The appellant, Mahanagar Gas Limited, awarded a work order to the respondent, M/s. Babulal Uttamchand & Co., for project management and construction o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appointment of Arbitrator in Government Contract Dispute Despite Non-Exhaustion of Pre-Arbitration Procedure. Party Autonomy and Minimal Judicial Intervention Upheld Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The appellant, Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., was awarded a contract by the respondent, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. (BRPNNL), on 04.03.201...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Arbitral Tribunal Order, Upholding Scheme of Arbitration Act. Parties Must Exhaust Remedies Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Before Invoking Article 226.

The petitioners, Business India Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Ashok Advani, and Business India Publications Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Union of India's Challenge to Arbitral Award on Loss of Profit and Interest in Railway Contract Dispute. Court Upholds 5% Loss of Profit on Withdrawn Work and 9% Interest as Reasonable and Within Tribunal's Discretion Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The case involves two arbitration petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a common arbitral award dated ...