Sporting Pastime India Ltd. And K.K. ... vs Kasturi And Sons Ltd. [Alongwith C.A. ... on 5 December, 2005
Similarly, the case laws in Airtouch International (Mauritius) Limited v. RPG Cellular Investments and Holdings Private Limited and Pinaki Das Gupta v. Maadhyam Advertising Private Limited, wherein all the issues raised in the petition having directly arisen out of the agreement, will have no application to the facts of the case before me. The circumstances under which this Board dismissed the application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 in the matter of Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Fiat India Private Limited do not exist in the present case. The petitioner complained of the breach committed by the second respondent in discharging the liabilities of the Company taken over by him in terms of the agreement and in incurring an aggregate amount of Rs. 2.95 crores by it as on 31.07.2005 for and on behalf of the Company, but no relief has been claimed before the CLB in this behalf. The petitioner, on the other hand made a claim of Rs. 31.74 crores against the second respondent spent by it in relation to operations and management of the Company and damages of Rs. 5 crores for breach of the contract, which are covered under Clauses 5 and 23 A respectively of the agreement. These claims made by the petitioner before the arbitral tribunal are not urged before the CLB, in which case, the arbitral tribunal will adjudicate only these specific issues on which reference has been made by the petitioner. If the allegations of oppression and mismanagement set out in the company petition can be adjudicated without reference to the terms of the agreement, then the question of referring the parties to arbitration does not arise even if the Agreement covers the same issue before the CLB.