Back
M. DURAISWAMY, T. V. THAMILSELVI
S. Muruga Barti – Appellant
Versus
Mahadevan Venkatachalam – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Clause 13 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order and decree dated 09.08.2018 made in O.P.No.781 of 2017 on the file of this Court)
T.V. Thamilselvi
1. The appellant has filed the above Original Side Appeal to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in O.P.No.781 of 2017 dated 09.08.2018.
2. The Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(i) The respondent was a promoter of a company called Primex Scans and Labs Private Limited, believing his representation, the appellant/ financial investor invested a sum of Rs.1.5 Crores in the year 2011 in the said Primex Scans and Labs Private Limited. The appellant was allotted 1798 shares for the said investments of Rs. 1.5 Crores. After some time, the appellant wanted to quit the company and take back his investments. After deliberation and negotiations, the respondent agreed to buy-back the shares held by the appellant. According to the appellant, based on the settlement that was arrived between him and the respondent, a share purchase agreement dated 15.07.2015 was entered into between them and the respondent agreed to
The court upheld the specific performance of the share purchase agreement, emphasizing the enforceability of such contracts under the Specific Relief Act and the Sale of Goods Act. The court also rej....
Specific performance is appropriate where shares are not freely saleable, as monetary compensation would not provide adequate relief, affirming the right to specific performance as per contract terms....
The court upheld the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming the arbitrator's findings on readiness and willingness, and the award of compens....
Specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary even when an oral contract is established, allowing for compensation in lieu if deemed appropriate.
The court affirmed that no notice was required for the sale of charged shares, and the Plaintiff failed to prove claims of breach of contract and undervaluation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an arbitral award cannot be modified or varied, and the nature of an agreement is a matter of construction and not a ground for setting aside ....
The main legal point established in this judgment is the interpretation of the arbitration agreement and the determination of whether the disputes arising from the Share Purchase Agreement are amenab....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
