9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically u/s 8, in a case where a civil revision petition was filed against an order passed by the Company Law Board. The main issue revolves around the maintainability of a company petition filed under sections 397, 398, 402, and 403 of the Companies Act 1956, and the subsequent application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act to refer the matter to arbitration. Details of Judgment: Issue 1: Maintainability of the company petition The respondent filed a company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement by the revision petitioner-company. The basis for this petition was a subscription agreement dated February 16, 1996. However, the revision petitioner argued that a subsequent share sale agreement in December 2000 extinguished the respondent's rights as a shareholder, rendering the company petition not maintainable. The revision petitioner sought to refer the matter to arbitration under the arbitration clause in the subscription agreement. Issue 2: Interpretation of Arbitration Act u/s 8 The revision petitioner contended that the Arbitration Act allows the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. They argued that even if the contract is held null and void, the arbitration clause remains valid. The revision petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of raising objections regarding the applicability of an arbitration clause before the arbitrator. Issue 3: Concerns raised by the respondent The respondent argued that the revision petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions under section 8 of the Arbitration Act. They contended that there was no valid arbitration agreement as per the revision petitioner's own submissions. Additionally, the respondent highlighted that certain reliefs sought in the company petition could only be granted by the Company Law Board under specific sections of the Companies Act, not by an arbitrator. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the order of the Company Law Board. It was noted that the revision petitioner's argument regarding the extinguishment of the subscription agreement rendered the arbitration clause inapplicable. The Court also referenced previous judgments emphasizing the distinct scopes of company petitions and arbitration clauses, concluding that certain reliefs could only be granted by the Company Law Board. Therefore, the Company Law Board's decision was deemed lawful, and the civil revision petition was dismissed along with the connected application.
|
