Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2016 (12) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1773 - Tri - Companies LawOppression and mismanagement - non-implementation of the MOU dated 18.03.2009 and two addendums attached with it dated 13.03.2010 and 26.03.2010 - whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the dispute raised in the company petition filed u/s. 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act could be referred to arbitration on the basis of identical reliefs having been claimed? HELD THAT:- The law on the subject is fairly well settled - In the case of Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya [2003 (4) TMI 435 - SUPREME COURT] Hon'ble the Supreme Court has, inter alia observed that The Court has to apply its mind to the condition contemplated under section 89 CPC and even if application under section 8 of the Act is rejected, the Court is required to follow the procedure prescribed under the said section. The company petition is nothing else but a dressed up petition and is not covered by the provision of chapter 6 of the Companies Act, 1956. Merely by modifying the prayer or using different expression in various paras of the petition prefacing it with the allegations of 'oppression and mismanagement' a petition would not assume the character of a petition u/s. 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act - The arbitration proceedings are pending before the arbitrator and the matters concerning all the allegations based on MOU and the two addendums. The reliefs which have been claimed in the petition can be claimed and granted by the Arbitrator. On the excuse and pretext of 'oppression and mismanagement' the petitioner cannot be given a colour of a dispute of 'oppression and mismanagement'. Therefore we do not find any substance in the arguments of the counsel for the non applicant-petitioner that the company petition is aimed at only preventing the 'oppression and mismanagement'.
|