- (1.) Maruti Limited (in liquidation through the Liquidator attached to this Court, has filed a petition (C.P. No. 60 of 1978) under Section 446(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act) read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for a claim of a sum of Rs. 6,000 against Mis. B.G. Shirke and Company (P) Ltd. and others.
(2.) Notice of the claim petition was given to the Respondents, who in obedience to the notice, put in appearance and filed C.A. No. 93 of 1979 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to the effect that the proceedings instituted in C.P. No. 60 of 1978 be stayed and the Petitioner be directed to resort to the remedy of arbitration as agreed upon in the lease deed entered into between the parties. C.A. No. 93 of 1979 came up for hearing before me on November 15, 1979. Considering that the point involved in the application was of considerable importance, I decided to refer the matter for decision to a larger Bench and that is how we are seized of the matter.
(3.) The question that needs determination by us, may be stated thus: Whether an arbitration agreement to which the company was a party, continues to bind the company subsequent to the order of winding up as it did before The contention of Mr. J.S. Narang, learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that the Official Liquidator is not bound by the arbitration clause in the agreement that after a company goes in liquidation, it is only the Court which has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any suit on proceeding by or against the company or any claim made by or against it, and that as the clause in the agreement envisaging reference of the dispute to arbitration is repugnant to the provisions of Section 446(2) of the Act, the same was void and could not legally be enforced.;