https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270074 A petition genuinely invoking oppression and mismanagement remedies under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to fall within the Company Law Board's special statutory jurisdiction. Reliefs such as regulation of company affairs, restoration of shareholding, reinstatement of directors, and challenge to prejudicial corporate acts were treated as matters affecting the company's status and future conduct, not merely contractual rights in personam. The statutory scheme was treated as a complete code, so the arbitration clause in the joint venture agreement could not displace that jurisdiction or split the controversy for arbitration. The dispute was therefore held not arbitrable, and the section 8 application was rejected. en-us Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Dec 2015 01:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270074 A petition genuinely invoking oppression and mismanagement remedies under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to fall within the Company Law Board's special statutory jurisdiction. Reliefs such as regulation of company affairs, restoration of shareholding, reinstatement of directors, and challenge to prejudicial corporate acts were treated as matters affecting the company's status and future conduct, not merely contractual rights in personam. The statutory scheme was treated as a complete code, so the arbitration clause in the joint venture agreement could not displace that jurisdiction or split the controversy for arbitration. The dispute was therefore held not arbitrable, and the section 8 application was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270074