1996 (9) TMI 184 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the petition in two CWPs.
2. Objections to the maintainability of the petition raised by respondent No. 1.
3. Alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the petition in two CWPs
The judgment pertains to the preliminary objections raised regarding the maintainability of the petition in two CWPs. The court noted that the facts in both cases were similar, involving the transfer of bonds between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The petitioner sought relief against the forfeiture of bonds and accrued interest. The respondent raised objections to the maintainability of the petitions, citing the lack of clearance from the High Power Committee for Resolution of Disputes and the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue 2: Objections to the maintainability of the petition
The respondent raised objections to the maintainability of the petition on two grounds. Firstly, it argued that the petition should have been cleared by the High Power Committee for Resolution of Disputes before filing. The court examined the directions given by the Supreme Court in previous cases and concluded that the lack of clearance did not render the petition non-maintainable. Secondly, the respondent contended that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 111 of the Companies Act, which allowed for petitions to the Company Law Board in cases of refusal to register transfers of shares or debentures. The court considered this argument and ultimately dismissed the petitions on the basis of the availability of an alternative remedy.

Issue 3: Alternative efficacious remedy under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 111 of the Companies Act, which provide for remedies in cases of refusal to register transfers of shares or debentures. The respondent argued that the petitioner could seek redressal through the Company Law Board, which had the power to rectify registers and make necessary orders. The court agreed with this argument, stating that the disputes raised in the petitions could be appropriately addressed through the Company Law Board under Section 111. As a result, the court dismissed the petitions, deeming them not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed both petitions on the grounds of the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, and rejected the objections raised regarding the maintainability of the petitions. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and previous court decisions that informed the court's decision in this case.