9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of City Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure and Companies Act, 1956 for matters related to loss of equity shares and issuance of duplicate share certificates. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the order of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, which rejected the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, citing that the matter concerning loss of equity shares and consequential reliefs falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court as per Section 84 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the City Civil Courts Act. 2. The plaintiff-appellant claimed to have purchased 2,000 equity shares of a company and sent them for transfer, suspecting the shares were lost in transit or wrongfully possessed. The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership and issuance of duplicate share certificates. 3. The legal provisions, including Section 84(4) of the Companies Act and Rule 4(3) of the Companies (Issue of Share Certificates) Rules, were examined. The court noted that while rules prescribe the manner of issuing duplicate share certificates, the Act lacks a mechanism for adjudicating disputes related to such issues. 4. The interpretation of Section 2(11) and Section 10 of the Act was crucial in determining the jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the Act does not entirely exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts for matters not specified to be adjudicated by the Court under the Act. 5. A Division Bench decision highlighted that not all matters under the Act are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court mentioned in Section 10, supporting the argument that civil courts may have jurisdiction in certain cases. 6. The court rejected the argument that all defendants residing in Bombay deprived the City Civil Court of jurisdiction, as part of the cause of action, particularly the issuance of duplicate share certificates, arose in Calcutta. The duty of the defendant company to deliver the shares to the plaintiff at Calcutta was emphasized. 7. The court concluded that the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter, and the civil court's jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code was not ousted by the Companies Act. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the City Civil Court's order and directing it to proceed with the injunction application. 8. The judgment clarified the territorial jurisdiction issue raised by the respondents, affirming that part of the cause of action indeed arose in Calcutta, granting jurisdiction to the City Civil Court for further proceedings. This detailed analysis covers the jurisdictional aspects and legal interpretations crucial to the judgment delivered by the High Court of Calcutta.
|
