9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany") was incorporated with registered office at Delhi. In this company the appellant as well as the Belgium company had equal shareholding. Pursuant to the setting up of this company, 18.6 acres of lands were acquired in Uttarakhand for putting up the plant, loans were obtained and other steps were taken to make the company functional. It is alleged that sometime in June/July, 2008, the Belgium company and its directors started acting against the interest of the Indian company incorporated in terms of the joint venture agreement leading to disputes between the appellant and the Belgium company. The appellant therefore filed CP 58(ND)/2008 before the Company Law Board on 19.9.2008 under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, complaining against the acts of oppression by the Belgium company. In October, 2008, the Belgium company filed a company petition before the Company Law Board in CP 63(ND)/2008 against the appellant alleging oppression and mismanagement. 3. In the course of the arguments advanced on 31.8.2009 before the CLB during the hearing of the company petition filed by the Belgium company, there was an attempt at settling the issues and both parties agreed before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that the valuers JLL acted in gross violation of the CSA, that the micro and macro research for transactions related to development around the subject land were not done, that under the CSA it was the duty of the appellant to supply relevant information which would constitute the basis of the valuation and that JLL had whimsically chosen not to take into consideration the inputs and details pertaining to the land furnished by the appellant. It was pointed out that the entire purpose of the valuation would stand defeated if the inputs supplied by the appellant were not taken into consideration. On this basis it was contended that JLL had completely failed to carry out its duties and obligations as per the orders passed by the CLB and within the time frame. The applicant accordingly prayed that the CLB may direct JLL to refund the amount of Rs.16 lakhs paid by the appellant and appoint some other valuer to carry out the valuation of the land. 7. JLL filed a reply to the aforesaid application and stoutly denied the allegation made by the appellant in the application. It was first submitted that JLL was not a party to the litigation pending before the CLB in the company petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for recovery of the said amount under orders of the Board. Thus, the application filed by the appellant was dismissed. 10. The reasoning given by the CLB was that clause 17 of the CSA is not attracted since once the appellant agreed to the appointment of JLL and also agreed and undertook before the CLB to bear the fees payable for the work of valuation and also paid the first instalment, it was bound to pay the balance of the fee to JLL on submission of the valuation report as per orders of the CLB. Commenting on the conduct of the appellant (applicant before the CLB), the CLB observed that the application was nothing but a blatant abuse of the process of the Board. 11. It is the aforesaid order of the CLB that is challenged in appeal before this Court. 12. After hearing the rival arguments, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal. The appellant, as pointed by the CLB, had undertook and agreed before the CLB that it would bear the entire fees payable to JLL who were appointed by the CLB to carry out the work of valuation of the land. Accordingly, the first instalment of the fee of Rs.16 lakhs together with service tax etc. was paid in April, 2010. Thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filing CA 260/2012. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and submitted that the CLB ought to have referred the matter to arbitration instead of deciding the matter itself. Section 8(1) is as follows : "8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement - (1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration." After the judgment of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India (1995) 84 Company Cases 70, it cannot be disputed that the Company Law Board is a judicial authority. However, the other condition of the sub-section is that the action which was brought before the CLB should have been in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement. This condition is not satisfied in the present case. The main company petition No.63(ND)/2013 was filed by the Belgium Company against the appellant herein, under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
