929

The requirement of making of an application under Sec. 8(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration is more a requirement of form than of substance – Madhu Sudan Sharma & Ors. Vs. Omaxe Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) The requirement of making of an application seeking reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration, as engrafted in Section 8(1) of the 1996 Act, is more a requirement of form than of substance. What matters is whether there is, in fact, an arbitration agreement between the parties, which is valid and subsisting.
(ii) The absence of any formal request for referring the dispute to arbitration makes no difference. An objection, predicated on Section 8 of the 1996 Act, in the light the existence of the arbitration agreement, ipso facto denudes the Court of its power to continue with the suit. It is rendered coram non judice. All future acts by the Court, in continuing to entertain the suit are, therefore, rendered ipso facto without jurisdiction.
(iii) An objection, predicated on the arbitration clause, was specifically raised by the appellants, firstly in the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) for grant of leave to defend the suit and, consequent to grant of leave, in the written statement.

The requirement of making of an application under Sec. 8(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration is more a requirement of form than of substance – Madhu Sudan Sharma & Ors. Vs. Omaxe Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Whether a Single Judicial Bench is competent to hear and adjudicate the matter after remand by NCLAT – Mahendra G. Wadhwani Vs. M/s. Reed Relays & Electronics India Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The issues that are relevant in deciding this appeal are as follows:-

(i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority hearing the matter in a Single Member Bench was legally competent to consider the matter after remand by NCLAT, , which matter was earlier heard by a Division Bench of NCLT?

(ii) Whether the Special Resolution passed under sections 100-104 of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 read with section 52 of the Companies Act, 2013 is in the nature of buy-back shares of non-promoters’ shareholders and is akin to providing them exit as contemplated under the Exit Circulars of SEBI?

(iii) Whether the Respondent Company was not required to follow the various circulars issued by SEBI for providing exit to its non-promoters’ shareholders upon de-recognition of a stock exchange where the Company was earlier listed?

(iv) Whether the valuation of share value as done by the company was protecting the interest of its public shareholders who wanted to voluntarily exit the company?

(v) Whether the Company’s funds could have been used for buy-back the shares of exiting non-promoters’ shareholders, providing exit to non-promoters’ shareholders instead of using the funds of the shareholders and also whether the shareholders have unjustly enriched themselves by becoming 100% shareholders of the company without using their own funds, which is contrary to the guidelines given by SEBI in its Exit Circular dated 10.10.2016?

Whether a Single Judicial Bench is competent to hear and adjudicate the matter after remand by NCLAT – Mahendra G. Wadhwani Vs. M/s. Reed Relays & Electronics India Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top