https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215947 An arbitral tribunal need not separately decide the shareholding-pattern dispute where the parties had already agreed to transfer shares and left the consideration and payment mode to the arbitrator. The valuation of the petitioners' shares at Rs. 450 per share was upheld because the arbitrator adopted a reasoned, plausible method based on the company's assets, liabilities and valuation material, preferred one chartered accountant's report on rational grounds, and gave reasons for rejecting competing benchmarks. No patent illegality, perversity or other ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was shown, so the award was sustained. en-us Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215947 An arbitral tribunal need not separately decide the shareholding-pattern dispute where the parties had already agreed to transfer shares and left the consideration and payment mode to the arbitrator. The valuation of the petitioners' shares at Rs. 450 per share was upheld because the arbitrator adopted a reasoned, plausible method based on the company's assets, liabilities and valuation material, preferred one chartered accountant's report on rational grounds, and gave reasons for rejecting competing benchmarks. No patent illegality, perversity or other ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was shown, so the award was sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215947