9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to Try the Suit 2. Application for Temporary Injunction Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to Try the Suit The primary question addressed in this judgment was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiff. According to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. The defendants argued that the suit was barred under the Companies Act, 1956, specifically citing Sections 2(11)(a), 10, 398, and 402(a) of the Act, and a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 10(2) of the Act. Section 2(11)(a) defines "the court" as the one having jurisdiction under the Act concerning matters related to a company. Section 10 specifies that the High Court or, in certain cases, the District Court, has jurisdiction under the Act. The notification under Section 10(2) empowered district courts to exercise jurisdiction conferred by the Act, excluding certain matters. The court examined whether the Companies Act expressly barred the jurisdiction of civil courts. The court found that the Act did not contain any express provision barring civil courts from trying the present suit. The plaintiff sought a declaration that he was entitled to remain a director and that the election held on December 30, 1967, was illegal and void. The court concluded that the relief sought by the plaintiff was not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the company court under Sections 398 and 402(a) of the Act. The court also considered whether the jurisdiction of civil courts was impliedly barred. The court referred to the decision in Nava Samaj Ltd. v. Civil Judge, Class 1, Rajnandgaon, where one judge opined that the company court had exclusive jurisdiction, while another judge disagreed. The court also cited the decision in Muni Lal Peshawaria v. Balwant Rai Kumar, where it was held that the Companies Act did not expressly bar civil court jurisdiction and that the civil courts could decide rights arising out of the Act. The court further referred to decisions in Sarat Chandra Chakravarti v. Tarak Chandra Chatterjee, Sati Nath Mukherjee v. Suresh Chandra Roy, and Dr. Satya Charan Law v. Rameshwar Prosad Bajoria, which supported the view that civil courts had jurisdiction in similar cases. Based on these considerations, the court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the present suit. 2. Application for Temporary Injunction The plaintiff had also filed an application for a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to restrain the defendants from holding the meeting of the newly constituted board of directors and to allow the plaintiff to continue attending and participating in the board meetings. The trial court dismissed the application for a temporary injunction, noting that the plaintiff did not raise any objection when served with the notice for the annual general meeting on December 8, 1967, and did not file the suit immediately after the meeting. The court found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendants and that no case had been made out for granting a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. Conclusion: The court concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissed the revision petition filed by the company and Shiv Kumar Gupta, defendant No. 6. The court directed the parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings.
|
