<?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>2022 (8) TMI 1163 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426924</link>
    <description>An order of the NCLT allowing reference of an oppression and mismanagement petition to arbitration was appealable under Section 421 of the Companies Act notwithstanding the limited appeal structure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Proceedings under Sections 241 and 242 are statutory remedies involving reliefs reserved to the Tribunal and are non-arbitrable by necessary implication, so the company petition had to proceed on merits before the Tribunal. The transfer and impleadment requests were rejected for want of sufficient grounds, and the contempt/perjury applications failed because no wilful disobedience of any express order was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2022 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1163 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426924</link>
      <description>An order of the NCLT allowing reference of an oppression and mismanagement petition to arbitration was appealable under Section 421 of the Companies Act notwithstanding the limited appeal structure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Proceedings under Sections 241 and 242 are statutory remedies involving reliefs reserved to the Tribunal and are non-arbitrable by necessary implication, so the company petition had to proceed on merits before the Tribunal. The transfer and impleadment requests were rejected for want of sufficient grounds, and the contempt/perjury applications failed because no wilful disobedience of any express order was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>