9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 870 - HC - Companies LawArbitration proceedings - Held that - In fact in the present case, it is Mrs.Sonia Khosla who has moved the petition before CLB ignoring the arbitration agreement. Interim orders were prayed for and were granted to Mrs.Sonia Khosla. It was Mr.Vikram Bakshi, one of the respondents who filed the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act stating that there is an arbitration agreement and the parties should resolve their disputes by the arbitration process. These proceedings cannot be said to be non-est and void ab initio as is sought to be argued. All supplementary and incidental proceedings and the said orders cannot be said to be void ab initio merely because an application was filed by Mr.Vikram Bakshi under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act and was pending adjudication. CLB did not cease to have jurisdiction. It is not clear as to how the appellant is in any manner concerned or connected with the controversy regarding the application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act by Mr.Vikram Bakshi before the CLB. The petition before CLB was not filed by him. It is also the case of the appellant as stated in the present appeal that he is not a party to the agreement dated 31.03.2006 or to the ensuing arbitration proceedings. Hence, it is obvious that the appellant is not concerned with the arbitration proceedings/application. There is no merit in this present appeal and the same is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Company Law Board (CLB) post the filing of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. 2. Validity of orders passed by the CLB from 31.08.2007 to 20.10.2008. 3. Limitation period for filing the appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. Whether the orders passed by the CLB are void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction. 5. Impact of the Supreme Court's directions on the present appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Company Law Board (CLB) Post the Filing of an Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act: The appellant contended that the CLB ceased to have jurisdiction to pass any orders after 31.08.2007 when an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was filed by Mr. Vikram Bakshi. The appellant argued that the CLB should have first settled the issue of its jurisdiction before passing any further orders. The court noted that the mere filing of an application under Section 8 does not oust the jurisdiction of the CLB to pass incidental or supplemental orders. The court relied on judgments like *Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. Jayesh H. Pandya* and *Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd.* to conclude that the CLB retained jurisdiction to pass orders until a decision on the Section 8 application was made. 2. Validity of Orders Passed by the CLB from 31.08.2007 to 20.10.2008: The appellant argued that all orders passed by the CLB during this period were void ab initio due to the pending Section 8 application. The court examined various orders passed by the CLB and found them to be incidental and supplemental proceedings, which the CLB had the jurisdiction to pass. The court concluded that these orders were not void ab initio and the CLB did not lose its jurisdiction merely because of the pending Section 8 application. 3. Limitation Period for Filing the Appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956: The respondent argued that the appeal filed on 11.11.2008 was barred by limitation as it was beyond the permissible period of 60+60 days. The court referred to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in *Pawan Goel vs. KMG Milk Food Ltd. & Ors.* and the Supreme Court's confirmation of the same, which held that the limitation period prescribed under Section 10F does not permit any further extension beyond 120 days. The court concluded that the present appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation and was hence barred. 4. Whether the Orders Passed by the CLB are Void Ab Initio Due to Lack of Jurisdiction: The appellant argued that the orders passed by the CLB were void ab initio due to the lack of jurisdiction. The court noted that the appellant was not a party to the agreement dated 31.03.2006 or the ensuing arbitration proceedings and hence was not directly concerned with the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The court concluded that the orders passed by the CLB were not void ab initio and the CLB had the jurisdiction to pass incidental and supplemental orders. 5. Impact of the Supreme Court's Directions on the Present Appeal: The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment dated 08.05.2014, which directed the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the company petition before the CLB. The Supreme Court had noted the entire gamut of facts and disputes and passed directions that would override the orders of the CLB challenged by the appellant. The court concluded that the present appeal had become redundant and infructuous in light of the Supreme Court's directions. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was barred by limitation and that the orders passed by the CLB were not void ab initio. The court also noted that the Supreme Court's directions had rendered the appeal redundant. All pending applications were also dismissed.
|
