https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292684 An arbitration clause did not by itself require referral of the oppression and mismanagement disputes to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Board held that arbitrability had to be assessed against the validity and operability of the agreement and the nature of the reliefs sought, and refused reference because the petition involved corporate control, diversion of funds, and other reliefs beyond arbitral competence. The challenge to Deloitte's interim report also failed, as the respondents had not cooperated adequately with the court-directed exercise and the report remained relevant material. Applying the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury tests, the Board granted only limited interim protection and declined harsh interim supersession. en-us Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jan 2021 19:45:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292684 An arbitration clause did not by itself require referral of the oppression and mismanagement disputes to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Board held that arbitrability had to be assessed against the validity and operability of the agreement and the nature of the reliefs sought, and refused reference because the petition involved corporate control, diversion of funds, and other reliefs beyond arbitral competence. The challenge to Deloitte's interim report also failed, as the respondents had not cooperated adequately with the court-directed exercise and the report remained relevant material. Applying the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury tests, the Board granted only limited interim protection and declined harsh interim supersession. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292684