https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101321 A consensual reference of inter partes shareholding disputes in proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held permissible, and the order of reference was construed as appointing the named person as arbitrator to decide the validity of the relevant meetings and allotments. Allegations of bias or misconduct were rejected because they lacked factual basis, so the arbitral proceedings were allowed to continue. The court also permitted an early amendment to the reply challenging the first petitioner's shareholding, subject to costs, while holding that the new issue would enter the arbitral reference only if both parties consented; otherwise, it would remain for later determination by the court. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:30:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101321 A consensual reference of inter partes shareholding disputes in proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held permissible, and the order of reference was construed as appointing the named person as arbitrator to decide the validity of the relevant meetings and allotments. Allegations of bias or misconduct were rejected because they lacked factual basis, so the arbitral proceedings were allowed to continue. The court also permitted an early amendment to the reply challenging the first petitioner's shareholding, subject to costs, while holding that the new issue would enter the arbitral reference only if both parties consented; otherwise, it would remain for later determination by the court. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 12 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101321