Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Binay Prakash and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - 1. heard the parties at length on maintainability of this appeal as well as on merits......heard the parties at length on maintainability of this appeal as well as on merits.2. this appeal has been filed under section 10f of the companies act. 1956 against the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the company law board. principal bench, new delhi (c.l.b. for short) on the petition filed by the appellant, under section 8 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (arbitration act for short) being c.a. no. 257 of 2006, in the petition filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 (binay prakash group for short) under sections 397/398 of the companies act, 1956 being c.p no. 66 of 2006; holding that the disputes cannot be referred to arbitration. (the parties position before the clb is mentioned in the cause title of this appeal, for the sake of convenience)3. according to the appellant, the dispute between the parties has to be decided by the arbitral tribunal as per the agreement, whereas the contention of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 (referred as binay prakash group) is that the dispute can be decided only by the clb.4. when this appeal was taken upon 18.1.2007. mr. s.n. mookherjee, appearing for the respondent-binay prakash group raised a preliminary objection that the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. Heard the parties at length on maintainability of this appeal as well as on merits.

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act. 1956 against the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Company Law Board. Principal Bench, New Delhi (C.L.B. for short) on the petition filed by the appellant, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act for short) being C.A. No. 257 of 2006, in the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Binay Prakash Group for short) under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 being C.P No. 66 of 2006; holding that the disputes cannot be referred to Arbitration. (The parties position before the CLB is mentioned in the cause title of this appeal, for the sake of convenience)

3. According to the appellant, the dispute between the parties has to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal as per the agreement, whereas the contention of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (referred as Binay Prakash Group) is that the dispute can be decided only by the CLB.

4. When this appeal was taken upon 18.1.2007. Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, appearing for the respondent-Binay Prakash Group raised a preliminary objection that the Division Bench is competent to hear this appeal. Such objection was referred to the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that this appeal can be heard by single Judge. Thus, this appeal is before me. Though, the objection of maintainability was not raised when the matter was referred to the Division Bench and even before the Division Bench, when this case was remitted to the single Judge for hearing and deciding the matter on its merits, but when such objection was raised at the time of admission of this appeal, it was admitted for hearing on all questions including its maintainability.

5. The Division Bench of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Suder shan Chopra etc. v. Vijay Kumar Chopra etc. (2002) 4 Comp LJ 1 : (2003) 117 Company Cases 660, held that appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act was not maintainable against an order passed by the CLB on the petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.

Against the said judgment, the matter was taken to Supreme Court vide SLA (Civil) No. 17271/2002. in which the following order was passed on 20.9.2002.

Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following