:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2008 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2008 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2008 IN IN IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 13 OF 2007 COMPANY PETITION NO. 13 OF 2007 COMPANY PETITION NO. 13 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1264 OF 2008 COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1264 OF 2008 COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1264 OF 2008 Spray Engineering Devices Ltd. ..Appellant versus Shree Saibaba Sugars Limited & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Prasad Pathare i/b. Mr. R. D. Bindra for the Appellant. Mr. N. N. Bhadrashete for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 28TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE : 28TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE : 28TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. This is an Appeal against the Order of the Company Law Board referring the dispute between the parties to the arbitration. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant though admittedly there is Arbitration Agreement dated 24.11.2004, there are some aspects in their application before :2: the Company Law Board under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act which can only be dealt with by the Board under Sections 397 and 398 and cannot be referred to arbitration. The learned counsel cites instances of oppression such as non issue of notices of general meeting, non despatch of balance sheet, and depriving the Appellant from attending general meeting and participating therein. Assuming that the contention is correct. It is clear from the prayer clauses of the application before the Company Law Board that no such reliefs have been sought. The prayer clauses reads as follows: "Pending final decision on the petition, the petitioner seeks the following interim reliefs: i) To restrain the respondents from selling, transferring or in any other manner alienating the assets of the respondent company; ii) To direct the respondents to furnish copies of Audited Balance Sheets of the respondent company for the financial years ended on 30.9.2005 and 30.9.2006; iii) To direct the respondents to provide to the petitioner monthly statements of receipts and expenditures, :3: minutes of Board Meetings and General Meetings of the respondent company since 24.11.2004, being the date on which the Agreement was executed between the parties herein. iv) To grant such other interim reliefs as this Hon’ble Board may deem appropriate in the interest of justice; From the prayer clauses, it appears that the Order of the Company Law Board is correct in law, in that the Board has observed that none of these reliefs can be considered and granted without reference to the terms of Arbitration Agreement dated 24.11.2004 which contains an arbitration clause of wide import, as follows: "All differences and disputes between the parties hereto on any clause or matter herein contained or their respective obligations, rights, claims, liabilities hereunder or otherwise in relation to or arising out of this Agreement, shall be referred to Arbitration by a sole Arbitrator mutually agreed upon and in case there is no agreement in this behalf both the parties shall appoint one Arbitrator each. The award of the Arbitrator or the Arbitrators as the case may be, shall be final and binding on both the parties. The Arbitrators so appointed shall, before entering upon the dispute, appoint an empire. The arbitration shall be governed by the Indian Arbitration and Adjudication of Disputes Act, 1996 or any modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force." 3. It is settled law that the Judicial :4: Authority exercising powers under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act has to only form a prima facie opinion that there exists an arbitral agreement which is not null and void; inoperative or incapable of being performed, vide Shin Etsu Shin Etsu Shin Etsu Chemicals Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd’s case [2005 Chemicals Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd’s case [2005 Chemicals Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd’s case [2005 7 SCC 234] 7 SCC 234] 7 SCC 234]. In any case the apprehension on behalf of the appellant is unfounded since the Arbitrator cannot usurp powers of the Company Law Board, which he does not possess. There is no merit in this Appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, Company Application No. 1264 of 2008 does not survive, the same also stands disposed of. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)