Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court directs fresh panel for Arbitral Tribunal appointments, emphasizes contractual terms</h1> <h3>CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION Versus M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY</h3> CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION Versus M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY - TMI Issues Involved:1. Appointment of an independent arbitrator without reference to the Clauses of General Conditions of Contract (GCC).2. Eligibility of retired Railway Officers to be appointed as arbitrators under Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.3. Failure to act in terms of the Contract in not responding within thirty days from the date of the request.4. General Manager's eligibility to nominate the arbitrator after becoming ineligible by operation of law.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Appointment of an Independent Arbitrator Without Reference to the Clauses of General Conditions of Contract (GCC):The appellant argued that the High Court erred in appointing an independent arbitrator, Shri Rajesh Dayal Khare, contrary to Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and 64(3)(b) of the GCC. These clauses stipulate that the Arbitral Tribunal should consist of a panel of three gazetted Railway Officers or retired Railway Officers. The High Court's decision was based on the premise that its powers to appoint an arbitrator are independent of the contract terms. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the High Court should have adhered to the procedure outlined in the GCC, which is binding on the parties. The Supreme Court referenced previous judgments, including Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company and Union of India v. Pradeep Vinod Construction Company, to support this stance.2. Eligibility of Retired Railway Officers to be Appointed as Arbitrators:The respondent contended that the panel proposed by the appellant was ineligible under Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as they were either serving or retired employees of the appellant. The Supreme Court, however, referred to Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Government of Haryana PWD Haryana (B and R) Branch v. G.F. Toll Road Private Limited, which clarified that retired employees are not automatically ineligible to act as arbitrators. The Court held that the expertise of retired officers is valuable for resolving technical disputes, and their past employment does not disqualify them.3. Failure to Act in Terms of the Contract in Not Responding Within Thirty Days:The respondent claimed that the appellant failed to act within the stipulated thirty days after the request for arbitration, thus forfeiting its right to appoint arbitrators. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had sent a list of four serving officers within sixty days, and upon the respondent's disagreement, sent another list of retired officers. The respondent did not reply to this second list and instead filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act. The Supreme Court cited Punj Lloyd Ltd. v. Petronet MHB Ltd. and Union of India v. Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd., emphasizing that the right to appoint an arbitrator is not forfeited if the appointment is made before the filing of a Section 11 petition.4. General Manager's Eligibility to Nominate the Arbitrator:The respondent argued that the General Manager, being ineligible to act as an arbitrator under Section 12(5), cannot nominate another arbitrator. The Supreme Court referred to TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another v. HSCC (India) Limited, which distinguished between cases where the ineligible person appoints an arbitrator and where both parties nominate their respective arbitrators. The Court held that the General Manager’s power to nominate arbitrators is counterbalanced by the respondent’s power to choose from the panel, thus maintaining fairness.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and directed the appellant to send a fresh panel of four retired officers within thirty days. The respondent is to select two names from this panel, and the appellant will constitute the Arbitral Tribunal as per Clause 64(3)(b) of the GCC. The judgment underscores adherence to contractual terms in arbitration appointments and clarifies the eligibility of retired officers as arbitrators.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found