Legal ruling: Corporate governance disputes not arbitrable under Companies Act.

The Tribunal held that the disputes and reliefs sought in the Company Petition, involving allegations of oppression and mismanagement under the Companies Act, 2013, are not arbitrable. The application to refer the matter to arbitration was dismissed, affirming the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to adjudicate such issues. The decision emphasized that statutory remedies for corporate governance matters cannot be replaced by arbitration agreements, in line with established legal principles and precedents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the disputes in the Company Petition fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
2. Whether the reliefs sought in the Company Petition can be adjudicated and granted in arbitration.
3. Whether all parties to the Company Petition are parties to the arbitration agreement.
4. Whether the statutory remedy for oppression and mismanagement under the Companies Act, 2013 can be referred to arbitration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of Arbitration Agreement:
The respondents filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to refer the matter to arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The applicants argued that the disputes in the Company Petition, which involve allegations of oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241-246 of the Companies Act, 2013, fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. However, the respondents contended that the statutory remedy for oppression and mismanagement is not arbitrable and must be adjudicated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

2. Reliefs Sought in Company Petition:
The reliefs sought in the Company Petition include directing an independent forensic audit, investigating the affairs of the company, declaring mismanagement, and various compensatory and injunctive reliefs. The respondents argued that these reliefs are statutory remedies under the Companies Act, 2013, and cannot be granted by an arbitral tribunal. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the reliefs sought pertain to the statutory powers of the NCLT under Sections 241 and 242, which cannot be exercised by an arbitral tribunal.

3. Parties to Arbitration Agreement:
The respondents argued that the 2007 MoU, which includes an arbitration clause, binds all parties involved in the Company Petition. However, the Tribunal noted that the 2007 MoU pertains to specific terms and conditions related to the settlement of disputes from a previous MoU in 1998 and does not cover the broader statutory issues of oppression and mismanagement alleged in the Company Petition. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that not all parties to the Company Petition are signatories to the arbitration agreement, making it inappropriate to refer the entire matter to arbitration.

4. Statutory Remedy for Oppression and Mismanagement:
The Tribunal emphasized that the remedy for oppression and mismanagement is a statutory remedy provided under the Companies Act, 2013, and the power to grant such reliefs is conferred exclusively on the NCLT. Citing various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Haryana Telecom Ltd. vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., the Tribunal held that matters involving statutory remedies and allegations of fraud cannot be referred to arbitration. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment in Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jayesh H. Pandya, which held that bifurcation of disputes, where some are arbitrable and others are not, is not permissible.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the disputes and reliefs sought in the Company Petition are not arbitrable and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT. The application to refer the matter to arbitration was dismissed, and the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues of oppression and mismanagement as provided under the Companies Act, 2013. The decision underscores the principle that statutory remedies for corporate governance issues cannot be supplanted by arbitration agreements.

---