9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of District Court to entertain application under section 75(4) of the Companies Act, 1956. Analysis: The revision petition involved an application by a private limited company to the District Court of Coimbatore under section 75(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking condonation of delay in filing a statement regarding the allotment of shares. The company had allotted shares on 6th April, 1956, but failed to file the statement within the prescribed time. The Registrar supplied the necessary form on 12th July, 1956, and the company filed the statement on 20th July, 1956, beyond the deadline of one month from the allotment date as per section 75(1)(a) of the Act. The District Court initially declined jurisdiction to entertain the application, citing that no notification had been issued empowering it to exercise jurisdiction under the new Act. The District Court's reasoning was based on the provisions of section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, which stipulates that the High Court has jurisdiction unless otherwise conferred on a District Court by the Central Government through notification. As no such notification was issued post the enactment of the new Companies Act, the District Court of Coimbatore was deemed to lack jurisdiction under the new Act. However, it was noted that under the Companies Act of 1913, the District Court had jurisdiction similar to that under section 10 of the new Act. The petitioner relied on section 645 of the Companies Act, 1956, which saves certain orders and proceedings under the old Act, but the Court found it difficult to apply this provision to the present case. The judgment referred to section 24 of the General Clauses Act X of 1897, which states that any appointment or notification made under a repealed Act continues in force unless inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions. It was argued that a government notification from 1947, conferring jurisdiction on District Courts, should be deemed to continue under the new Act of 1956. As section 75 of the new Act was not an excepted section under the relevant provisions, the District Court was held to have jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application. Consequently, the civil revision petition was allowed, the District Judge's order was set aside, and the application was directed to be restored for proper disposal without any costs imposed.
|
