9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Narayanlal Bansilar & Ors. [1960 (8) TMI 94 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], to contend that if two or more parties join in an action, dismissal of the action qua one petitioner entails the dismissal qua the others as well is wholly misplaced. No such ratio is discernible in the aforesaid judgment. For the aforesaid reasons, the objections raised by the respondent - Company to the present petition must fail. Shri Justice B.Sudershan Reddy, a former judge of this Court is appointed as the sole Arbitrator. All disputes including the disputes raised in the present petition are hereby referred to the learned sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to fix his own fees/ remuneration/other conditions in consultation with the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -how imparted by the respondent was claimed to be inadequate and defective hampering the business of the Joint Venture Company. Claims of inadequate assistance to further the business of the Joint Venture Company were also alleged, which, according to the petitioners, hampered the business undertaken. Furthermore, according to the petitioners, as correspondences and negotiations had failed to resolve the impasse, the issues of which the parties were at loggerhead were referable to Arbitration in terms of clause 15 of the Agreement. As the proposal for Arbitration made by the petitioners was not responded by the respondent - Company, the petitioners approached the International Centre for ADR, Hyderabad, who nominated one Mr. Justice T.N.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not arbitrable inasmuch as what the petitioners really want is the winding-up of the Company. It is further submitted that the respondent - Company had initiated a proceeding alleging oppression and mismanagement in the administration of the Joint Venture Company, which is presently pending before the Company Law Board. It is stated that, in the said proceedings, the petitioners have appeared and sought reference to Arbitration under Section 8 of the Act. All the aforesaid facts have not been stated in the application/petition under Section 11(6) of the Act. It is on the aforesaid broad basis that the assertions and the claims made in the present petition have been sought to be resisted by the respondent. 5. Of the various contentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication has been filed by the Joint Venture Company born out of the aforesaid Agreement as the first petitioner and one Tumblalam Gooty Veera Prasad, T.G. Aruna Kumari and Naag Rohit respectively as Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 are the wife and son of the petitioner No.2 and all of them claim to represent M/s Kanda and Associates. Available on record is a query made by the respondent - Company with regard to the legal status of M/s Kanda and Associates on 28th October, 2002 and the reply thereto furnished by the petitioner No.2, which is to the effect that Kanda Associates is only a group of people formed for giving birth to the joint venture company . It has also been stated in the said reply that Kanda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
