<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (5) TMI 799 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259925</link>
    <description>The court held that shareholders cannot maintain a suit to challenge an arbitration award on behalf of the company. The suit filed by the shareholders was deemed not maintainable as only the company can challenge the award. The court distinguished between derivative action and personal rights of shareholders, emphasizing that the suit was a personal action by shareholders seeking to enforce their own rights. Fraud and collusion allegations against directors were acknowledged but were considered personal wrongs against the shareholders. The court dismissed the challenge to the arbitration award as barred by limitation and reiterated the exclusive applicability of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitration award. The court allowed the rejection of the plaint in part, dismissing the challenge to the arbitration award but permitting other reliefs sought by the plaintiffs to be adjudicated at trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 May 2015 07:48:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 799 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259925</link>
      <description>The court held that shareholders cannot maintain a suit to challenge an arbitration award on behalf of the company. The suit filed by the shareholders was deemed not maintainable as only the company can challenge the award. The court distinguished between derivative action and personal rights of shareholders, emphasizing that the suit was a personal action by shareholders seeking to enforce their own rights. Fraud and collusion allegations against directors were acknowledged but were considered personal wrongs against the shareholders. The court dismissed the challenge to the arbitration award as barred by limitation and reiterated the exclusive applicability of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitration award. The court allowed the rejection of the plaint in part, dismissing the challenge to the arbitration award but permitting other reliefs sought by the plaintiffs to be adjudicated at trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>