We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Tribunal Appoints Mediators for Companies Act Dispute Resolution The Tribunal appointed two mediators, Dr. Subash Purohit and Sh. Sanjiv Aggarwal, to facilitate the mediation process between the parties involved in a ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal Appoints Mediators for Companies Act Dispute Resolution
The Tribunal appointed two mediators, Dr. Subash Purohit and Sh. Sanjiv Aggarwal, to facilitate the mediation process between the parties involved in a dispute under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite the parties' agreement on the need for mediation, they could not reach a consensus on a mediator. The appointed mediators were tasked with commencing the mediation process and following the rules outlined in The Companies (Mediation and Conciliation) Rules, 2016. The mediation was required to be completed within three months, with parties sharing the expenses equally. The Tribunal disposed of the application with these directions.
Issues involved: 1. Dispute between parties under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 2. Application under Section 442 of the Companies Act, 2013 for mediation 3. Lack of consensus on mediators between parties 4. Appointment of mediators for the dispute resolution
Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed a petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 due to a dispute with the first respondent company. The Tribunal listed the matter on various dates and directed the parties to consider mediation under Section 442 of the Companies Act, 2013. Both parties submitted lists of mediators, but there was no consensus on a common mediator despite agreeing to mediation.
2. Section 442 of the Companies Act, 2013 allows parties in proceedings before the Tribunal to apply for mediation. The Tribunal also has the power to refer matters to experts from the Mediation and Conciliation Panel. The provision came into effect from 1.04.2014, and the Central Government framed The Companies (Mediation and Conciliation) Rules, 2016. The Central Government has notified a Mediation and Conciliation Panel for such purposes.
3. Despite the consensus on the need for mediation, the parties could not agree on a mediator. Considering the provisions of Section 442 and the Rules, the Tribunal appointed two mediators to facilitate the mediation process. Dr. Subash Purohit, Advocate, and Sh. Sanjiv Aggarwal, Practising Chartered Accountant, were appointed as mediators to mediate between the parties.
4. The appointed mediators were instructed to inform the parties about the mediation commencement and follow the rules outlined in The Companies (Mediation and Conciliation) Rules, 2016. The mediation process should be completed within three months from the first intimation date to the parties. The parties were directed to negotiate fees with the mediators and share the expenses equally. The Tribunal disposed of the application under IA No. 19/JPR/2018 with these directions.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.