Revisiting Arbitrability of Claims of Oppression and Mismanagement: A Singapore Perspective

[Aishwarya Singh is a 4th year student at Jindal Global Law School] The Bombay High Court (HC) in the case of Rakesh Malhotra v. Rajinder Kumar Malhotra (2014) had held that oppression and mismanagement claims are not arbitrable because the arbitral tribunal does not have the power to grant all the statutory reliefs available in a minority oppression claim. On the other hand, the Singapore Court of Appeal (SGCA) in the case of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd. and another v. Silica Investor Ltd. (2015) adopted a different reasoning to hold that minority oppression claims are arbitrable, even if the arbitral tribunal cannot grant the full range of remedies. This post attempts to contrast the rationale of the two judgements to argue that the approach adopted by the SGCA is legally sound and pragmatic. Two Positions In the case of Rakesh Malhotra, the Court observed that under section 8 and section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the expression “matter”…

Read more detail on Recent Business Law posts –

This entry was posted in Business law and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply