<?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>1999 (6) TMI 485 - THE COMPANY LAW BOARD PRINCIPAL BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199671</link>
    <description>A mixed company petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held not to be wholly referable to arbitration merely because one set of grievances arose from a sponsorship agreement containing an arbitration clause. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies only where the subject-matter before the forum is the same as the subject-matter covered by the arbitration agreement and the reference is sought before the first statement on the substance of the dispute. Allegations of independent oppression, mismanagement, and Companies Act non-compliance remained justiciable before the Board, while only agreement-based disputes could fall within arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:59:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 485 - THE COMPANY LAW BOARD PRINCIPAL BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199671</link>
      <description>A mixed company petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held not to be wholly referable to arbitration merely because one set of grievances arose from a sponsorship agreement containing an arbitration clause. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies only where the subject-matter before the forum is the same as the subject-matter covered by the arbitration agreement and the reference is sought before the first statement on the substance of the dispute. Allegations of independent oppression, mismanagement, and Companies Act non-compliance remained justiciable before the Board, while only agreement-based disputes could fall within arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>