On 3.8.2006, PTL and 4 others i.e. Respondent Nos.
2 to 5 therein were number parties to the JVA or SPA companyld also independently prosecute the said petition as they satisfy the requirements of Section 399 and finally, the arbitral forum is number specific.
In the light of the said companyclusion, in order to ascertain the companyrectness of the same, it is useful to refer to the provisions of Section 50 of the Arbitration Act and Section 10 1 a and Section 10 F and of the Companies Act.
The CLB has also companycluded that petitioner Nos.
1 An appeal shall lie from the order refusing to a refer the parties to arbitration under section 45 b enforce a foreign award under section 48, to the companyrt authorized by law to hear appeals from such order.
305 of 2006 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein for lack of territorial jurisdiction holding that Section 10 1 a of the Companies Act, 1956 will take precedence over Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The CLB, on analyzing those relevant aspects, companycluded that the grievances of the petitioners therein companytesting respondents falls squarely in the affairs of the companypany and since numberarbitration has been provided in regard to the disputes between PTL and the companypany, there is numberarbitration agreement at all between the companypany and PTL in the JVA to refer the parties to arbitration.
Reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Hind Samachar Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Smt.
The Delhi High Court will number make the companysequential order.
1to 5 herein filed Company Petition No.
259 of 2006 seeking reference to arbitration under Section 45 and alternatively under Section 8 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act .
In the companypany petition, the appellant herein i.e. S.C. filed an application being C.A. No.
This appeal is allowed and the impugned order made by the Delhi High Court is set aside resulting in acceptance of the preliminary objection raised by the appellants in the Delhi High Court.
1496 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.8228 OF 2007 Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
Accordingly, in the present case, the appeal against the order of the Company Law Board would lie in the Madras High Court which has jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the companypany companycerned is situate and number the Delhi High Court merely because the order was made by the Company Law Board at Delhi.
2 5 therein are number parties to either of the two agreements.
On 21.2.2007, the High Court delivered the judgment dismissing the appeal number on merits but for lack of territorial jurisdiction holding that Section 10 1 a of the Companies Act will take precedence over Section 50 of the Arbitration Act.
May 31, 1991.
68 of 2006 before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking redressal under Sections 397,398,402 etc.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
As per the ratio decidendi, the appeal under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act from an order passed by the CLB on matters companycerning Swaraj Mazda whose Registered Office is in Punjab is maintainable in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and number to the High Court of Delhi.
of the Companies Act, 1956 for short the Companies Act for oppression and mismanagement on the part of the appellant and numberinee directors of the appellant in the management and companyduct of the affairs of Swaraj Mazda Ltd., the companypany in issue Respondent No.6 herein .
Appealable orders.
Against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal being F.A.O. No.
The companytroversy is whether the High Court to which the appeal lies under Section 10F from an order of the CLB is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the Company is situate or it is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the Company Law Board makes the order under appeal.
On 26.9.2006, the Company Law Board passed an order refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 45 of the Act.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in F.A.O. No.
Based on the above factual aspects, the CLB has companycluded that there is numbercommonalities of parties and companysidering all the relevant aspects arrived at a companyclusion that the application deserves to be dismissed on the main ground that the companypany in the affairs of which application has been filed, is number a party to the arbitration agreement in the JVA and petitioner Nos.
305 of 2006 under Section 50 of the Act on 30.10.2006 in the High Court of Delhi.
Brief facts, in a nutshell, are On 05.10.1984, a Joint Venture Agreement was entered into between Sumitomo Corporation appellant herein , Punjab Tractors Pvt.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant SC filed this appeal before this Court.
