9911796707
TMI Blog1946 (8) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Directors of the Company. That requisition is stated to have been deposited in the office of the Company on 30th January, 1945, and, according to the applicant, it was the respondent as the Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, who was responsible for the decision to disregard that requisition. I understand that the proposals, which the requisitionists desired to have considered, were, inter alia, concerned with a change in the incumbent of the post of Secretary and Treasurer. Also, I understand, that the proposals concerned a change in the personnel of the Board of Directors. As the requisition for an extraordinary general meeting to consider these proposals was disregarded, it is said that the requisitionists decided to hold the meeting on their own. The applicant claims that they gave sufficient notice to all the shareholders of the Company, and that the meeting duly took place on 16th April, 1945. That meeting, it is said, had to be arranged outside the Company's premises on account of the alleged refusal of the respondent to permit the meeting to be held there. It is said that the respondent also refused to hand over the minute books etc ., of the Company for use a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te under which of these provisions he claimed there was a substantive right to file such a petition, but he frankly admitted that there is no specific provision in the Act, which enables such a petition to be filed. Section 3 is of course a jurisdiction section. Section 82 is the section dealing with the requirements of registration of copies of special and extraordinary resolutions and Section 87 imposes a responsibility on the officers of the Company to keep at the registered office of the Company a register of the Directors, Managers, and Managing Agents etc . Rule 9, of course, is a procedural provision governing the form, which applications under the Act are to take in this Court. It is clear that none of these provisions can be relied on as justifying the hearing of the present application- Counsel for the applicant meets this difficulty by relying on what he describes as the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to give effect to, or to enforce compliance with the provisions of the Act, I am by no means clear as to what specific provision of the Act he relies on as imposing the liabilities which he now claims to enforce. Section 82 provides that a copy of every special and ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition and the matter came on revision before a Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Subsection (1) of Section 36 of the Act gives a right to a shareholder in a Company to inspect the register of the members. Sub-section (2) gives a right to him to require the Company to supply a copy of the register, or any part of it. Sub-section (3) provides a remedy in case the Company refuses to allow him to inspect the register, but the section is silent as to any remedy for a failure to give a copy of the register. It was held in British India Corporation, Ltd. s case ( supra ), that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass orders to compel due observance of the statutory obligations of a Company, and, accordingly that the Company Court could pass an order compelling the Company to furnish a copy of the register of its members. Now the applicant states that his case is on all fours with this. He states that there is an obligation on the respondent to hand over the books etc ., of the Company to him as he, the applicant, is now the Secretary and Treasurer of the Company. Furthermore, he urges that the District Munsiff's Court has no jurisdiction to hear and consider the matters in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Courts referred to in Section 3 of the Act have inherent jurisdiction to compel due observance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. As has been pointed out by the learned District Judge, it is a fundamental principle of legal administration that where the law requires something to be done there must be in existence a Court that can directly order it to be done. It is well understood in all systems of civilised jurisprudence that where there is a right there is a remedy." However apt these observations may be in respect of the right of a Court to enforce a particular statutory obligation, in cases where the Act imposing that obligation makes no reference to the method of enforcement, I cannot accept that they have any application in a case like the present, where, as I have already indicated, I am satisfied that the right, if any. of the applicant is one in respect of which he could, if he were so minded, seek relief in the ordinary Courts. Further, I cannot accept the second part of the applicant's contention, viz., that this Court as the Company Court is the only Court having jurisdiction to enquire into these matters and with the greatest respect to the learned Judges w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
