Section 8 arbitration bar does not oust jurisdiction over ancillary valuer disputes in oppression and mismanagement proceedings.

Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies only where the matter before the judicial authority is itself covered by an arbitration agreement. In oppression and mismanagement proceedings, the Company Law Board's appointment of a valuer for share valuation was an ancillary step, and the appellant's grievance over the valuer's fee and report was not the subject matter of the arbitration clause. The Board therefore retained jurisdiction to deal with the application for refund and substitution of the valuer. As the appellant had agreed to bear the valuer's fees and no proper basis was shown for replacement, refund and appointment of another valuer were not justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Company Law Board lacked jurisdiction to decide the application because the consulting agreement contained an arbitration clause and section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was attracted; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the amount paid to the valuer and to appointment of another valuer.

Issue (i): Whether the Company Law Board lacked jurisdiction to decide the application because the consulting agreement contained an arbitration clause and section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was attracted.

Analysis: Section 8 applies only when the action brought before a judicial authority is in a matter which is itself the subject of an arbitration agreement. The dispute before the Company Law Board arose in cross-petitions concerning oppression and mismanagement, and the valuer was appointed by the Board as part of the process of determining the fair value of shares. The appellant's grievance against the valuer's fee and report was not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Board. The appellant itself approached the Board for refund and substitution of the valuer and, having failed, could not deny the Board's jurisdiction to decide that application.

Conclusion: Section 8 was not attracted and the Company Law Board had jurisdiction to decide the application.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the amount paid to the valuer and to appointment of another valuer.

Analysis: The appellant had agreed before the Company Law Board to bear the valuer's fees and had paid the first instalment. The valuer acted as an appointee of the Board for a limited professional assignment and was not obliged to keep the appellant informed of every stage of the valuation process. The material showed that the report was ready and that the balance fee was awaited. No basis was made out for refund of the fee already paid or for replacement of the valuer.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to refund or substitution of the valuer.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Company Law Board's order failed, and the dismissal of the application was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is attracted only when the very matter before the judicial authority is covered by the arbitration agreement; an ancillary dispute arising from a tribunal-appointed expert's engagement in separate proceedings does not oust the tribunal's jurisdiction.

---