1962 (2) TMI 29 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Whether the suit should be treated as a petition under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Pecuniary jurisdiction of the court in relation to the suit valued at Rs. 1,300.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Shah, J. of the High Court of Bombay pertains to a suit filed for rectification of the register of members maintained by a company. The plaintiffs alleged that the company wrongfully refused to register certain shares in their names despite submitting a duly completed transfer form. The primary issue raised by defendant No. 1 was regarding the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, as the subject matter was valued at Rs. 1,300, falling below the court's jurisdictional limit. The plaintiffs argued that the suit was under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, and thus within the court's competence. However, the court held that even though section 155 provides a summary procedure, a suit would be the primary remedy under general law for such relief. The court clarified that the relief under section 155 is also available at common law through a civil action, and the provision for a summary procedure does not replace the option of filing a suit.

Furthermore, the court rejected the argument to treat the suit as a petition under section 155, emphasizing the distinction between the High Court's jurisdiction under the Companies Act and its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The court highlighted that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is crucial, and the suit valued at Rs. 1,300 was exclusively triable by the City Civil Court due to falling below the High Court's pecuniary limit. The court emphasized that the suit, not being a summary proceeding under section 155, required consideration of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code. Ultimately, the court dismissed the suit, stating that it could not be treated as a petition under the Companies Act, and the High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain it under the Act due to its pecuniary value.