<?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>2018 (7) TMI 1396 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364088</link>
    <description>An arbitration clause in a cancelled MOU could not be relied on where the cancellation had attained finality and the original arbitration agreement, or a duly certified copy, was not produced. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was also inapplicable because several respondents and the companies were not parties to the MOU and had not adopted it. Petitions alleging oppression and mismanagement under the Companies Act were not fully arbitrable, as they involved a wider statutory field than ordinary contractual disputes. The request to refer the disputes to arbitration was therefore rejected and the refusal to arbitrate was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2018 08:13:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1396 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364088</link>
      <description>An arbitration clause in a cancelled MOU could not be relied on where the cancellation had attained finality and the original arbitration agreement, or a duly certified copy, was not produced. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was also inapplicable because several respondents and the companies were not parties to the MOU and had not adopted it. Petitions alleging oppression and mismanagement under the Companies Act were not fully arbitrable, as they involved a wider statutory field than ordinary contractual disputes. The request to refer the disputes to arbitration was therefore rejected and the refusal to arbitrate was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>