https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379875 A dispute alleging oppression and mismanagement under the Companies Act, 2013 was held not to be barred merely because related contractual disputes were being pursued in arbitration. The Tribunal distinguished the arbitral claims from the statutory grievances, noting that complaints about meeting notices, access to accounts, nominee directors, and financial control concerned shareholder and governance rights within its special jurisdiction. It also held that such reliefs, including equitable and management-related directions under sections 241 and 242, are beyond the powers of a sole arbitrator. The petition was therefore treated as a genuine statutory company petition, not a disguised contractual claim, and arbitration was rejected as the forum for these grievances. en-us Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2019 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379875 A dispute alleging oppression and mismanagement under the Companies Act, 2013 was held not to be barred merely because related contractual disputes were being pursued in arbitration. The Tribunal distinguished the arbitral claims from the statutory grievances, noting that complaints about meeting notices, access to accounts, nominee directors, and financial control concerned shareholder and governance rights within its special jurisdiction. It also held that such reliefs, including equitable and management-related directions under sections 241 and 242, are beyond the powers of a sole arbitrator. The petition was therefore treated as a genuine statutory company petition, not a disguised contractual claim, and arbitration was rejected as the forum for these grievances. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379875