Jurisdictional refusal by company tribunal cannot be justified by pending arbitration between strangers to the arbitration agreement.

A statutory tribunal cannot defer adjudication of a company petition by making relief contingent on arbitration between persons who were not parties to the arbitration agreement or proceedings. The Gujarat High Court treated the grievance as jurisdictional, holding that the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not bar writ intervention where the tribunal was alleged to have refused to exercise vested jurisdiction. The company tribunal was required to decide the petition independently and in accordance with law, and any arbitral findings could not bind the petitioners at that stage. Interim protection was granted by staying the deferment order and allowing the company petition to proceed independently.

---

---

Issues: Whether the National Company Law Tribunal could defer adjudication of the company petition until the outcome of arbitration between other parties, and whether the arbitral tribunal could bind petitioners who were not parties to the arbitration agreement or the arbitration proceedings.

Analysis: The availability of an appellate remedy under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not bar writ jurisdiction where the tribunal had allegedly refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The order under challenge postponed decision on several substantive reliefs in the company petition and made them dependent on findings of an arbitral tribunal, even though the petitioners were not parties to the arbitration agreement or the arbitral proceedings. In such circumstances, the petitioners' grievance raised a jurisdictional issue, and the company tribunal was required to decide the issues independently and in accordance with law. The arbitral tribunal could not, at this stage, be treated as having jurisdiction to determine the petitioners' rights so as to make its findings binding on them.

Conclusion: The writ petition was entertained, the impugned order of the tribunal was stayed, and the tribunal was permitted to proceed with the company petition independently of the arbitration.

Final Conclusion: The order granted interim protection to the petitioners by suspending the tribunal's deferment of the company proceedings and by clarifying that any arbitral determination would not bind them, while leaving the merits open for further adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal cannot postpone adjudication of a matter before it by making its decision contingent on arbitration between strangers to the arbitration agreement, and the existence of an appellate remedy does not preclude writ intervention where there is a prima facie refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

---