Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (11) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 96 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) and has refused to appoint an arbitrator and refer the dispute to the arbitrator, original applicant has preferred the present appeal. 2. That the appellants herein approached the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 by way of O.P. No. 304/2019 to appoint an arbitrator so that the arbitral tribunal can be constituted in terms of clause 17.1.2 of the Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement entered into between the appellants and the respondent at Chennai on 27.04.2016. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the said application and refused to appoint an arbitrator mainly on the grounds that at the time when the application under Section 11(6) of the Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lders agreement and the said dispute was the subject matter of another arbitral proceedings. It is submitted that even the appellant was not a party to the earlier arbitral proceedings. 3.1 Now so far as the proceedings pending before the NCLT initiated by the respondent with respect to the oppression and mismanagement as a minority shareholder is concerned, pendency of such proceedings cannot be a ground to not to refer the dispute between the parties and appoint an arbitrator. 3.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vidya Drolia and Ors. Vs. Durga Trading Corporation; (2021) 2 SCC 1 (paragraphs 147.9, 147.11 and 225), it is prayed to allow the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel appear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... RESOLUTION 17.1. Dispute Resolution, Jurisdiction and Governing Law 17.1.1 The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India. If any question, dispute, controversy or claim shall at any time arise between the Parties inter se or between a Party(ies) and the Company, with respect to the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this Agreement or the rights or obligations of the Parties and the Company hereunder, or regarding any question including the question as to whether the termination of this Agreement by either Party has been legitimate, (collectively, "Dispute") then the Parties shall attempt to settle . such Dispute amicab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7.1.6, each Party submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Chennai. Provided that, the Parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent courts as may be necessary for the enforcement of an arbitral award obtained in accordance with this Clause 17. 17.1.8 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the rights and obligations of the Parties under this Clause shall survive termination of this Agreement." 5.2 As observed hereinabove and from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that the High Court has refused to appoint an arbitrator, interalia, on the ground that at the time when the application was filed there were already arbitral proceedings pending between t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondent as minority shareholder for oppression and mismanagement is pending before the NCLT is concerned, on the pendency of such proceedings the application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 cannot be dismissed. It should be left to the arbitrator to consider the entire aspect. The dispute is with respect to the Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement which is altogether different from the allegations of mismanagement and oppression at the instance of minority shareholder initiated by the respondent. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the High Court has erred in dismissing the application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 and has erred in refusing to appoint an arbitrator with respect to the dispute b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates