2-tier procedure not permitted for section 11 petitions

0
1313
LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link

Allowing an appeal in Hindustan Copper Ltd v Monarch Gold Mining Co Ltd, the Supreme Court ruled that the distinction drawn by a division bench of Calcutta High Court between the procedure for appointment of arbitrator and the actual appointment of the arbitrator is not well founded.

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the procedure being following by Calcutta High Court for consideration of applications under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is “legally impermissible”.

Section 11 provides for the appointment of arbitrators.

goodyear-tire-flattens-infringersThe Supreme Court ruled that a 2005 ruling by a seven-judge bench in SBP & Co v Patel Engineering Ltd left no doubt that the piecemeal consideration by Calcutta High Court of applications under section 11 by the designate judge and another designate judge or the chief justice, as the case may be, is not contemplated by section 11.

You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.

For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.

你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章,欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员

已有集团订阅,可点击此处继续浏览。
如对集团订阅感兴趣,请联络我们

The update of court judgments is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in or lbhasin@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.

LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link