DIRAK DIETER RAMSAUR KONSTRUCKTIONSELEMENTE Vs. CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 before the Company Law Board questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed in C.A. No. 34 of 2009 in C.P. No. 34 of 2009 ( Dirak GmbH Vs. S.D. Chakravarthy (2010) 153 Comp Cas 1 (CLB)).

(2.) The short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the Company Law Board was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellants herein seeking appointment of arbitrator by filing an application under sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellants herein who were respondents Nos. 2 and 3 before the Company Law Board and in the company petition on service of notice appeared before the Company Law Board and filed an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with regulation 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, contending that the company petition was not maintainable in respect of disputes raised by the petitioner in terms of article 17 of the financial collaboration agreement since in the said agreement it had been specifically provided for referring the disputes inter se between the parties to an arbitrator and accordingly the said application has been filed. The said application was not examined on the merits by the Company Law Board. However, the Company Law Board found that the original agreement dated May 7, 1998, or its duly certified copy thereof had not been filed and accordingly, on this short ground it held that the application itself was not maintainable, and accordingly C.A. No. 34 of 2009 ( Dirak GmbH Vs. S.D. Chakravarthy (2010) 153 Comp Cas 1 (CLB)) came to be rejected.

(3.) We have heard learned senior counsel Sri S.S. Naganand, appearing for the appellants and Sri A. Murali, learned counsel appearing for M/s. J. Sagar Associates.