G.S. Patel, J.

1. Is a dispute brought before the Company Law Board invoking the provisions of Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 at all referable to a private tribunal, viz., an arbitral panel for resolution? Does a decision of a foreign court on the question of whether a dispute is covered by an arbitration agreement bind the Company Law Board? These are among the questions of law canvassed in this group of appeals.

A. STRUCTURE

2. The following table of contents is intended to serve as a guide to the structure of this judgment. A list of the authorities cited or referred is appended for convenience.

A. Structure ....................................................................................... 13

B. Summary ....................................................................................... 15

C. The factual background ................................................................ 20

I. The Super-Max Group ...................................................... 20

II. The Restructuring Proposal & The Subscription & Shareholder Deed ....................... 21

III. The Business Restructing Agreements and the Supplemental Deed .......................... 23

IV. The onset of disputes ........................................................ 24

V. RKM files Company Petitions before the CLB alleging oppression and mismanagement ............. 25

VI. The UK Commercial Court Ex-parte Injunction & Its Subsequent Dissolution ......... 26

VII. The applications for reference to arbitration before the CLB ................................. 30

VIII. The impugned order ......................................................... 30

IX. The present Appeals ......................................................... 31

D. RKM’s Company Petitions before the CLB, Mumbai in summary ............................ 32

E. The impugned order dated 31st January 2013; questions for determination by the CLB; its findings ................... 36

F. The questions for determination in these appeals ........................ 39

G. RKM’s submissions regarding arbitration and the scope of Ss 397-402 of the Companies Act, 1956 ...................42

H. Rakesh’s submissions regarding arbitration and the scope of Ss 397-402 of the Companies Act, 1956 ................... 79

I. Are disputes under Ss 397/398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 arbitrable? ............................................89

J. The “dressing up” argument..................................................... 105

K. Was the CLB bound by the decision of the UK court? Section 13 of the CPC................................................................. 110

L. Maintainability of cross appeals/cross objections .......................137

M. The appointment of an observer by the CLB............................. 139

N. Conclusions & final order ............................................................141

O. Stay of this order & judgment..................................................... 143

List of authorities & decisions cited ................................................ 150

…continued/-

B. SUMMARY

3. All eight appeals, under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, are directed against an order dated 31st January 2013 of the Company Law Board (“CLB”). One Rakesh Rajinder Malhotra is the Appellant in the first four appeals: Company Appeal (L) No.10 of 2013, Company Appeal (L) No.11 of 2013, Company Appeal No.23 of 2013 (Company Appeal (L) No.12 Of 2013), Company Appeal No.24 of 2013 (Company Appeal (L) No.13 of 2013). Rakesh Malhotra’s father, one Rajinder Kumar Malhotra, is the Appellant in Company Appeal No. 15 of 2013 (Company Appeal (L) No.16 of 2013). He and his wife, Rakesh’s mother, Veena Rajinder Malhotra are the two Appellants in Company Appeal No. 18 of 2013 (Company Appeal (L) No.19 of 2013). One Sapphire Properties Private Limited is the Appellant in Company Appeal No.16 of 2013 (Company Appeal (L) No.17 of 2013). One RSM Properties Private Limited is the A