Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2016 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 910 - HC - Companies LawValidity of interim order - CLB had passed the interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards the share holding and composition of the Board of Directors of the company with a further restraint order upon both the rival groups from creating any third party interest over the fixed assets of the company without the leave of the Board - Held that:- In order to succeed in getting a reference of the disputes raised under Section 397, 398 read with Section 402 and 403 of the Companies Act to arbitration, the applicant/ appellants would not only be liable to show that the entire gamut of the dispute falls within the purview of the arbitration agreement but also the fact that company petition is a sham and mischievous one which has been decked up deliberately so as to gainfully sustain the plea of non-arbitrability of such dispute. There would also be a heavy burden cast upon the appellants to show that the arbitration agreement would bind the non-signatory respondent No 10-15. In a case involving such complex questions of law and facts determination of the aforesaid aspect may call for deeper examination of the matter by the CLB. As such, the CLB cannot be found fault with for non-disposal of the C.A.907/2015 on the date of issuing the order dated 27/07/2015. Coming to the argument made by Mr Banerjee that due to the pendency of the C.A. No 907 /2015, the CLB did not have any jurisdiction to pass the order dated 27/07/2015 it may be mentioned here-in that there is nothing in the Act of 1996 that supports such a conclusion. In the absence of any express provision contained in the statute, ouster of jurisdiction of the CLB cannot be readily inferred by this court. There can be no doubt about the fact that in the instant case an obligation was cast upon the CLB to decide the objection as to the question of jurisdiction raised under section 8 of the Act of 1996 at the earliest point of time. But a perusal of the impugned order also indicates the reasons that have been recorded by the CLB for issuing the said order despite the pendency of the section 8 application. As such, the submission of Mr. Banerjee to the effect that the CLB did not have any jurisdiction to pass the order dated 27/07/2015 pending disposal of the section 8 application is found to be wholly untenable and hence, does not commend acceptance by this court. Thus the company appeal find under section 10(F) of the Act of 1996 is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The questions of law would stand answered accordingly.
|