https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273525 Limitation for an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ran from the date the right to apply accrued, which arose only when the company repudiated the claim and denied liability; the application was therefore within time. The agreement dated 1 June 1967 was upheld as valid and binding because board approval existed, the interested director disclosed his interest and abstained, fraud was unsupported, consideration was shown, and no shareholder approval or other legal bar was established. The arbitration clause was construed broadly enough to cover the dispute on remuneration and performance, so the controversy was referable to arbitration and a sole arbitrator was appointed. en-us Tue, 24 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jun 2018 12:58:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273525 Limitation for an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ran from the date the right to apply accrued, which arose only when the company repudiated the claim and denied liability; the application was therefore within time. The agreement dated 1 June 1967 was upheld as valid and binding because board approval existed, the interested director disclosed his interest and abstained, fraud was unsupported, consideration was shown, and no shareholder approval or other legal bar was established. The arbitration clause was construed broadly enough to cover the dispute on remuneration and performance, so the controversy was referable to arbitration and a sole arbitrator was appointed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 24 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273525