Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
AGIO COUNTERTRADE PTE. LIMITED V/S PUNJAB IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED , decided on Friday, May 14, 1999.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Arb. Petn. No. 24 of 1998 . ] 14/05/1999
Judge(s) : () SUJATA V. MANOHAR
Advocate(s) : Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Ms. R. Nath, P. Sen, U. Khaitan, R. K. Talwar, D. M. Sinha, Y. P. Dhingra.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page







#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1999 (3) ARBLR 183"  ==   "2000 (2) CLT 288"  ==   "2000 (100) CC 826"  ==   "1999 (10) JT 248"  ==   "1999 (3) RAJ 428"  ==   "1999 (9) Supreme 544"  ==   "1999 (5) SCC 734"  ==   "2000 (2) SLT 224"  ==   "2000 (S4) CLA 294"  ==   "1999 (3) CTC 447 (SC)"  







    Subject Index:Sick Industrial Company (Special Provisions) Act 1985. Section 22 -     1. Objection is overruled in view of the directions given by Honble the Chief Justice of India.2. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The application is made under the Appointment of Arbitrators by Honble the Chief Justice of India Scheme 1996 framed pursuant to Section 11.3. In the present case under Sections 11(5) and (6) the Chief Justice or any person designated by him to take necessary measures is required to appoint an Arbitrator as provided therein. It is not disputed by either side that the requirements of these sub-sections are complied with in the present case. It is however contended by learned counsel for the respondent that since the respondent Company has been declared as a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 and a scheme for the said Company has also been framed under the said Act an Arbitrator should not be appointed. The provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 have been shown to me. The present proceedings however for the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 have a very narrow scope and the same are not covered by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985. If however the respondents desire that the arbitration proceedings should not be proceeded with it is open to them to take appropriate legal steps in that connection under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and in accordance with law.4. In the premises by consent of both parties Justice S. Ranganathan retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India is appointed as sole Arbitrator as prayed for in the arbitration petition. Petition allowed.