SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(P&H) 431

MEHTAB S.GILL
Sudershan Chopra – Appellant
Versus
Company Law Board, Principal Bench – Respondent


Judgment

Mehtab S.Gill, J.

1. The petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing order dated December 8, 2000 (Annexure P-1).

2. The petitioners have averred that the rights of the petitioners have been affected by not relegating the parties to arbitration. It has been further averred that Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the "1996 Act"), postulates a contract between the parties and if there is an agreement for arbitration, the parties should be relegated to the jurisdiction of an arbitrator. A contract between a party having an arbitration agreement, a formal agreement is not necessary. It has been further averred that the meaning of expression "First statement on the substance of the dispute", has wrongly been interpreted by the Company Law Board. It has been further averred that, contesting an interlocutory application, would amount to acquiescence and it would be a step in the direction of the first statement. The "Hind Samachar Limited" was incorporated by the Indian Companies Act, 1930 with an authorised capital of Rs. 35 lacs. The main objects of the company are publishing of Newspapers, Journals, Maga




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top