Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.94 seconds)
Akkadian Housing And Infrastructure ... vs Pantheon Infrastructure Private ... on 3 July, 2006 cites

Bhadresh Kantilal Shah vs Magotteaux International And Ors. on 16 December, 1999

19. I am inclined to agree with the petitioners that for various reasons indicated below the disputes raised in the petition cannot be referred to arbitration. First is the absence of commonality of the parties. Even though it was urged by Shri Sarkar that arbitration agreement covers " the affairs of the company", I find that the company is not a party to the said agreement. In Magotteaux and Limrose cases, the Board has held that if the company is not a party to the arbitration agreement, the matter covered under a petition under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act cannot be referred to arbitration. Shri Sarkar submitted that all the respondents including the company are willing to abide by the arbitration agreement. In Sukanaya Holdings, the Supreme Court has held that the same cannot be permitted. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that while pointing out that the company is not a party to the arbitration agreement, the petitioners also pointed out that some of the other respondents are not party to the arbitration agreement. As rightly pointed out Shri Sarkar, by adding parties against whom no relief have been sought, reference to arbitration cannot be sought to be scuttled as held by this Board in Air Touch International case.
Company Law Board Cites 64 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Suresh Kumar Jain And Ors. vs Hindustan Ferro Industries Limited And ... on 15 June, 1998

The very fact that a prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition, it would amount to abandonment of his right under Section 8 of the Act. Further, in none of the hearings till 19th December, 2005, any reference was made by the respondents regarding the arbitration agreement. The stand of the respondents that reply to an application for interim relief cannot be considered to be the first statement on the substance cannot be accepted. Such a claim has been rejected by this Board in Suresh Kumar Jain v. Hindustan Ferro Industries Ltd. 1963 96 CC 507. As far as the contention of the respondents that to resist or to seek vacation of the interim order, allegations have to be dealt with in detail is concerned, it could be done provided an application under Section 8 had already been filed or is filed along with the reply. But in the present case, it was done only after about 10 days.
Company Law Board Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Chopra vs Hind Samachar Ltd. on 8 December, 2000

In Hind Samachar case, even though the respondents undertook to file an application under Section 8, they did so only after nearly 9 months, in the mean while, they themselves filing applications for interim reliefs. This Board held that by filing applications for interim, without moving the application under Section 8, the respondents had subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of this Board, In all these cases, in the replies, the respondents had not only specifically mentioned about the arbitration agreement but also contended that the disputes were covered in the said agreement but no formal applications under Section 8 were filed for a long time. On the contrary, in the present case, there is no mention of the arbitration agreement in the interim reply nor any averment that the disputes were covered under the said agreement and the application under Section 8 was filed within a week, that too before the conclusion of the arguments on the interim reliefs.
Company Law Board Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gautam Kapur And Ors. vs Limrose Engineering And Ors. on 16 February, 2004

In Limrose case, this Board has held that if allegations can be examined without reference to arbitration agreement, then, the same cannot be referred to arbitration. The counsel for the petitioners cited a number of cases to the proposition that matters covered in a petition under Sections 397/398 cannot be referred to arbitration, that arbitrator is not capable of granting reliefs as envisaged by Section 402 of the Act which can be granted only by the Company Law Board etc. with which I do not propose to deal with separately, as even otherwise, I am dismissing this application on the ground that the company is not a party to the arbitration agreement and that all the matters covered in the petition are not covered in the arbitration agreement and many of the allegations can be enquired into without reference to the Arbitration agreement.
Company Law Board Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Airtouch International (Mauritius) ... vs Rpg Cellular Investments And Holdings ... on 19 August, 2003

In so far as the contention that many of the respondents are not parties to arbitration agreement is concerned, in Airtouch International (Mauritius)Ltd. v. RPG Cellular Investments and Holdings P. Ltd. 121 CC 647, CLB has held that a shareholders' agreement containing arbitration agreement cannot be frustrated by adding third parties against whom no relief has been claimed. In the present case, the 5th respondent is an Executive Director and employee of the company and the 15th respondent is an independent Chartered Accountant. Therefore, they are not necessary parties. However, all the respondents are agreeable for referring the disputes to arbitration.
Company Law Board Cites 39 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1