2000 (9) TMI 976 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. Territorial jurisdiction regarding the appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act.
3. Conflict of decisions between different High Courts.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The revision petition challenged the order of the Company Law Board (CLB) sanctioning a Scheme under section 45-QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The petitioner, a secured creditor, raised objections to the maintainability of the revision petition. The court noted that an appellate remedy was available under section 10F of the Companies Act, making the revision under Article 227 not maintainable. The jurisdiction to invoke Article 227 depended on the cause of action decided by the CLB. The court emphasized that judicial discipline required avoiding conflicting decisions between High Courts and stated that the petitioner was aware of the legal implications of their registered office being in Bangalore.

Issue 2: The court addressed the objection related to territorial jurisdiction for the appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act. Referring to relevant judgments, the court concluded that an appeal against the CLB's order would lie only before the Karnataka High Court, where the company's registered office was situated. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established jurisdictional principles and avoiding conflicting decisions over the same subject matter between different High Courts.

Issue 3: The court highlighted the need to prevent conflicts between High Courts by dismissing the revision petition for lack of jurisdiction. Despite arguments citing precedents supporting the maintainability of the petition under Article 227, the court held that the petition was not maintainable and needed to be dismissed. The court emphasized that the availability of alternative statutory remedies would not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution. Ultimately, the court dismissed the civil revision petition and the connected civil miscellaneous petitions, ruling them as without jurisdiction and not eligible for costs.