9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the said Act had been excluded in the arbitration agreement. This order was taken on an appeal before the Bombay High Court and with the consent of the parties, the said order was set aside and the matter has been remanded back to this Board for considering the application afresh. 2. The petitioner holds 2.52% shares in the 1st respondent company. This company was established as a joint venture company between the petitioner and the 10th respondent for manufacture, sale and distribution of cars of the 10th respondent. At the time of incorporation, the petitioner held 49% shares and the 10th respondent held 51% shares along with its wholly owned subsidiary - the 11th respondent. In view of issue of further shares, the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressive to the petitioner, it has ought for supersession of the Board and appointment of an administrator and for re-instatement of the 9th respondent as director and also for restraining the respondents from removing the 6th respondent as a director. 5. In the application, the stand of the respondents is: All the allegations in the petition are relatable to the terms of JVA and SHA and since the disputes arising out of these agreements have been agreed to be referred to arbitration, the petitioner cannot agitate these matters in a petition under Sections 397/398 of the Act. The petitioner itself was fully aware that the disputes were covered by the arbitration agreements and accordingly it had filed an application under Section 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against the company by the arbitrator. Admittedly, the company is not a party either to JVA or SHA. Even though, the company is.a party to the escrow agreement the agreement related only to the safe custody of the share certificates and has nothing to do with the affairs of the company. As a matter of fact, the Bombay High Court declined to grant any relief only on the ground that the company was not a party to the arbitration agreements. Many of allegations in the petition viz. amendment to Article 40, non issue of notices for board meetings, irregularity in the conduct of AGM held on 24th May, 2002 etc. are not covered in any of the agreements. In view of the fact that there is no commonality of parties and that many of the allegations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
