https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279234 Oppression and mismanagement allegations involving share allotment, capital changes, statutory and meeting notices, board functioning, nominee directors and corporate records asserted shareholder rights under company law and the articles of association. Although the joint venture agreement contained arbitration clauses governing related matters, the claims could be determined independently of that agreement. Relief for oppression and mismanagement lay within the special statutory jurisdiction under the Companies Act and could not be displaced by arbitration. The Section 8 application was therefore rejected, and the disputes remained before the Company Law Board. 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 Oppression and mismanagement allegations involving share allotment, capital changes, statutory and meeting notices, board functioning, nominee directors and corporate records asserted shareholder rights under company law and the articles of association. Although the joint venture agreement contained arbitration clauses governing related matters, the claims could be determined independently of that agreement. Relief for oppression and mismanagement lay within the special statutory jurisdiction under the Companies Act and could not be displaced by arbitration. The Section 8 application was therefore rejected, and the disputes remained before the Company Law Board. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279234