Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
PCL Intertech Lenhydro Consortium Joint Venture – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Arbitration Application No.49 of 2024
ORDER
This Application is filed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the 1996 Act’ hereinafter) seeking appointment of arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the Applicant and Respondent No.1.
2. The brief facts as stated in the present Arbitration Application and in Agreement dated 20.03.2020 are that the Applicant was a successful bidder and was awarded with work pertaining to spill way and powerhouse of Koteswar Hydro Electric Project at Tehri Dam, Uttarakhand. The Applicant entered into an agreement dated 14.11.2002 with Tehri Hydro Electric Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred as ‘THDC’). Later respondent No.3 approached the applicant and participated in the work. When the work was in progress, certain disputes arose between the Applicant and THDC and legal proceedings were initiated
Disputes under an Escrow Agreement cannot warrant arbitration if the agreement has fulfilled its purpose and there is no joint request for closure.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator without consent violates procedural fairness under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, leading to the termination of the mandate.
The court considered the change of circumstances and vacated the interim order as the claim of the plaintiff had been decided by the arbitrator.
A party does not have to name an Arbitrator unless mutual consent exists, emphasizing the validity of the Trigger Notice in seeking arbitration and the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
The appointment of a sole arbitrator deviated from the statutory requirements and terms of the arbitration agreement, making proceedings invalid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court clarified that deletion of a party from proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not preclude the invocation of the arbitration clause against the deleted pa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article