Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA...
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2015 4 Supreme 737 : The legal documents explicitly address the appointment of technically qualified persons in tribunals handling company law matters. The court held that technical members of NCLT/NCLAT must be persons with specialized knowledge and skills in company law, and that mere administrative experience in civil services does not constitute technical expertise in company law. The judgment emphasizes that technical members should be selected from officers of Secretary or Additional Secretary level who possess known competence and integrity in company law, and that persons with experience in science, technology, medicine, banking, or industry cannot be deemed experts in company law simply by virtue of their background. This directly supports the proposition that appointing technically qualified persons—specifically those with expertise in company law—is essential and appropriate in matters requiring technical knowledge, as opposed to relying solely on judges without such specialized experience.Checking relevance for Rojer Mathew VS South Indian Bank Ltd. ...
Rojer Mathew VS South Indian Bank Ltd. - 2020 7 Supreme 580 : The legal documents explicitly reject the notion that technically qualified persons can replace judges in matters requiring technical knowledge when those matters involve adjudicatory functions. The court held that technical members can only be appointed where specialized skill, knowledge, or expertise is essential for disposal of matters, and not otherwise. It emphasized that where adjudicatory processes are transferred to tribunals without involving specialized expertise, appointing technical or non-judicial members constitutes a ''''clear case of delusion and encroachment upon the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.'''' Furthermore, the court reiterated that if jurisdiction of a High Court is transferred to a tribunal, the stature of its members must be equivalent to that of High Court judges, and their qualifications must be commensurate with the court being substituted. Therefore, it is not better to appoint a technically qualified person as an arbitrator instead of a judge in matters requiring technical knowledge when such matters involve judicial functions—only when genuine technical expertise is required should such appointments be made.Checking relevance for Union of India VS R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association...
Union of India VS R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association - 2010 4 Supreme 193 : The legal documents do not support the proposition that it is better to appoint a technically qualified person as an arbitrator instead of a judge in matters requiring technical knowledge. Instead, the documents emphasize that while Tribunals may include Technical Members when specialized expertise is required, such members must have genuine expertise in company law or allied subjects, not merely civil service experience. The Court explicitly rejects the idea that civil servants or individuals with general experience in science, technology, banking, or industry qualify as experts in company law. Furthermore, the documents stress that the independence and integrity of the judiciary must be preserved, and that the inclusion of non-judicial Technical Members should not dilute judicial authority or undermine the rule of law. The Court also notes that Tribunals with only Judicial Members would suffice for company law matters, and that the presence of Technical Members should be carefully calibrated to avoid encroachment on judicial independence. Therefore, the documents indicate that technical expertise should be integrated into judicial decision-making through qualified Technical Members, not through replacing judges with non-judicial arbitrators.Checking relevance for M. D. , Army Welfare Housing Organisation VS Sumangal Services Private LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Perkins Eastman Architects DPC VS HSCC (India) Ltd. ...
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC VS HSCC (India) Ltd. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1297 : In the instant case, no special qualifications such as expertise in any technical field are required of an Arbitrator. The court appointed Dr. Justice A.K. Sikri, a former Judge of the Apex Court, as the sole arbitrator to decide all disputes arising out of the Agreement, despite the matter potentially involving technical issues, because the nature of the arbitration did not necessitate technical expertise.Checking relevance for Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd. VS Union of India, Represented by the Chief Engineer (NW)...
Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd. VS Union of India, Represented by the Chief Engineer (NW) - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 1038 : The legal documents support the proposition that it is better to appoint a technically qualified person as an arbitrator in matters requiring technical knowledge. The court explicitly recognized the Arbitrator''''s expertise, stating that ''''the Arbitrator is a technical expert with experience in this field and hence the reason why the parties chose him so that he can properly assess the factual issues by relying on his expertise and experience.'''' The court further emphasized that ''''it is permissible for technically qualified Arbitrators to use their expertise, technical or general knowledge about a trade to decide a matter and that the same can never be termed as personal knowledge of the Arbitrator.'''' This confirms that appointing a technically qualified individual is not only appropriate but essential in technical disputes, as courts should not interfere with findings based on such expertise due to their own lack of technical knowhow.
