https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100926 A company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement was not liable to be stayed merely because the parties' disputes had been referred to arbitration or an arbitral award had already been made. The Bombay High Court noted that proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 involve a distinct inquiry from a challenge to the award, and that the wide remedial jurisdiction under section 402 is not displaced by an arbitration clause, arbitral proceedings, or the award itself. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied only to suits and had no application to the company petition; section 151 also afforded no basis for stay. en-us Thu, 15 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:16:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100926 A company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement was not liable to be stayed merely because the parties' disputes had been referred to arbitration or an arbitral award had already been made. The Bombay High Court noted that proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 involve a distinct inquiry from a challenge to the award, and that the wide remedial jurisdiction under section 402 is not displaced by an arbitration clause, arbitral proceedings, or the award itself. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied only to suits and had no application to the company petition; section 151 also afforded no basis for stay. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 15 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100926