2018 (7) TMI 1396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Goutham Shivshankar and Ms Sreoshi Chatterjee, Advocates For The Respondents : Mr. K.S. Ravichandran, PCS and Ms S. Manjula Devi, Advocate, Mr. S.M. Vivek Anand and Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocates And Mr. Prasanna S, Advocate JUDGEMENT BALVINDER SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) These three appeals, being Appeal No.319/2017, 320/2017 and 321/2017 have been preferred by the appellant against the common order dated 31st August, 2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Single Bench, Chennai in CA No.159/2012 in CP No.71/2012, CA No.190/2012 in CP No.80/2012 and CA No.1 of 2013 in CP No.45/2013. In these appeals though relate to different companies the facts are the similar, parties are the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umstances in this case are otherwise. 19. In view of the above discussions, the prayers made in instant applications are rejected." 3. The appellant has filed three appeals under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against the impugned order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the applications filed by the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and refusing to refer the dispute for arbitration despite the said Arbitration Agreement between the parties. The parties, who are known as Vaidyalingam Group (Mr Vaidyalingam, appellant herein) and Ganesan Group (Mr. Ganesan is Respondent No.1), are engaged in the rubber industry through various companies and partnership firms. The appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of powers conferred upon the Tribunal are quite distinct and cannot be granted by an Arbitrator at all, therefore, the appeals should fail. It is next contended that the Arbitration agreement will show there was no "consensus ad idem" at all between the parties on resorting to arbitration in relation to the disputes forming the cause of action in the company petitions. It is further stated that there was no fresh arbitration clause at all. It is stated that even the companies concerned are not parties. It is stated that if a party who is not a party to the alleged arbitration agreement is a necessary party, Section 8 of the Arbitration Act will not apply. It is next stated that the Company Appeal (AT) No.319, 320 and 321 of 2017 companies ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ispute. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the company applications and not properly appreciated the mandate of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the respondents can not cancel the MOU in absence of any termination Company Appeal (AT) No.319, 320 and 321 of 2017 clause permitting the same. The counsel further argued that even if the MOU stood cancelled, the arbitration clause would survive the cancellation of MOU. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that they have already cancelled the MOU vide communication dated 10.11.2011 and the same have not been challenged and have not actually initiated any steps under Section 21 o....