https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279234 Allegations of oppression and mismanagement concerning share allotment, share capital changes, defective notices, board composition, removal of nominee directors, and non-maintenance of corporate records were treated as statutory and corporate governance claims under the Companies Act, 1956 and the articles of association. The Company Law Board held that such grievances could be determined independently of the joint venture agreement, even though the agreement contained arbitration clauses on related matters. Because the reliefs sought were those available only under the special statutory regime for oppression and mismanagement, the statutory jurisdiction of the Board was not displaced by arbitration. The application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected and the disputes were not referred to arbitration. en-us Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Mar 2019 14:25:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279234 Allegations of oppression and mismanagement concerning share allotment, share capital changes, defective notices, board composition, removal of nominee directors, and non-maintenance of corporate records were treated as statutory and corporate governance claims under the Companies Act, 1956 and the articles of association. The Company Law Board held that such grievances could be determined independently of the joint venture agreement, even though the agreement contained arbitration clauses on related matters. Because the reliefs sought were those available only under the special statutory regime for oppression and mismanagement, the statutory jurisdiction of the Board was not displaced by arbitration. The application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected and the disputes were not referred to arbitration. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279234