VIKRAM BAKSHI AND ORS Vs. CONNAUGHT PLAZA RESTAURANTS (P) LTD AND ORS
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
VIKRAM BAKSHI AND ORS
CONNAUGHT PLAZA RESTAURANTS (P) LTD AND ORS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is second application preferred by respondent No. 2 under section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, Arbitration Act) again with a prayer that the Tribunal may refer the parties and/or persons claiming through or under them to arbitration pursuant to arbitration agreement contained in para 40(b) of the erstwhile Joint Venture Agreement dated 31.3.1995, as amended. A further prayer has also been made to vacate the interim order passed on 16.9.2013 which is continued later. The earlier application being Company Application No. 94/2013 was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.1.2014 without any permission to file fresh one on the same cause of action. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this application are that non-applicant-petitioner filed Company Petition No. 110(ND)/2013 in September, 2013, by invoking the provisions of sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, with the grievance of oppression and mismanagement against the applicant - respondents. There has been plethora of applications filed by the parties. On the decisions rendered by the CLB on those applications, the orders were challenged before the superior courts and the hearing before CLB was stayed. A perusal of the order sheet shows that, at one stage, the matter was transferred to Chennai Bench, which was brought back to Delhi Bench of the CLB after the orders were passed by Delhi High Court to that effect. A reference was made to Delhi High Court for issuance of criminal contempt on account of conduct of a counsel.
(2.)Thereafter, the arguments commenced and after the non-applicant-petitioner had concluded his arguments, the erstwhile CLB granted time, vide order dated 10.9.2015, to the non-applicant-petitioners to file written submissions. Accordingly, written submissions were filed. It is in the background of this chequered history that this second application has again been filed under section 45 of the Arbitration Act, curiously, on the ground that, in the written arguments, the non-applicant-petitioners have changed their stand.
(3.)In para 2 of the application, the following averments have been made:
"Respondent No. 2 respectfully submits that it shall press the present application, if this Hon'ble Tribunal forms a view that the new claim purported to be made by the petitioners in their written submissions dated 5 October, 2015 (which claim is not pleaded in, or relatable to, the company petition) (the 'written submissions') can be considered by this Hon'ble Tribunal."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.