Appellant Must Pay Balance Fee per Company Law Board Decision. CLB Jurisdiction Confirmed.

The court upheld the Company Law Board's decision, ruling that the appellant must pay JLL the balance fee as agreed. It determined that the CLB had jurisdiction over the matter, emphasizing that Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act did not apply to the dispute between the parties. The appeal was dismissed, and all related applications were rejected without costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement.
2. Appointment of JLL as a valuer and the fee dispute.
3. Applicability of arbitration under Clause 17 of the CSA.
4. Jurisdiction of the CLB under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:

The appellant filed CP 58(ND)/2008 before the Company Law Board (CLB) under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, complaining against acts of oppression by the Belgium company. Conversely, the Belgium company filed CP 63(ND)/2008 alleging oppression and mismanagement by the appellant. These cross-petitions led to the CLB's involvement in resolving the disputes, including determining the fair price of the shares of the Indian company.

2. Appointment of JLL as a Valuer and the Fee Dispute:

During the proceedings, both parties agreed to have the share price determined, leading to the appointment of M/s Ernst and Young and JLL by the CLB. JLL was tasked with valuing the land, and a fee of Rs.32 lakhs was quoted. Despite initial agreement by the appellant to bear the entire fee, disputes arose regarding the payment and the quality of JLL's valuation work. The appellant alleged that JLL did not consider relevant inputs and failed to fulfill its obligations under the Consulting Services Agreement (CSA), leading to an application for refund and reappointment of a new valuer.

3. Applicability of Arbitration Under Clause 17 of the CSA:

The appellant contended that the fee dispute should be referred to arbitration as per Clause 17 of the CSA, which provided for arbitration in case of disputes. JLL opposed this, arguing that the valuation report and fee payment were not subject to arbitration under the CSA. The CLB rejected the appellant's application, emphasizing that the appellant had agreed to bear the fees and was bound to pay the balance upon submission of the report.

4. Jurisdiction of the CLB Under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:

The appellant argued that the CLB should have referred the matter to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, the court noted that the main petitions before the CLB were under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, involving allegations of oppression and mismanagement, not directly related to the arbitration agreement between the appellant and JLL. The court held that Section 8(1) was not applicable as the dispute before the CLB was not the subject of an arbitration agreement. The court also dismissed the appellant's claim that the commencement of arbitral proceedings under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act deprived the CLB of jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

The court found no merit in the appeal, confirming the CLB's order. The appellant was bound to pay JLL the balance fee as agreed. The court held that the CLB was within its jurisdiction to decide the application, and Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act did not apply to the dispute between the appellant and JLL. The appeal and all connected applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.

---