9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (10) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the District Court of Coimbatore under section 75(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying that the delay in filing a statement in form No. 2 of the allotment of shares before the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Madras, may be condoned and that time may be extended for filing the said document up to the 20th July, 1956. The only facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are: On 6t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Judge he held that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and therefore returned the petition to the petitioner for being presented to the proper court having jurisdiction. The reasoning of the learned Judge was this. Under section 10 of the Act of 1956 the High Court is the court having jurisdiction except to the extent to which jurisdiction has been conferred on an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain applications under section 75(4) of the new Act, the present application could not be entertained by the District Court. It is common ground that under the Companies Act of 1913 the District Court had been invested with jurisdiction under section 3 of the old Act corresponding to section 10 of the new Act. Before the District Judge section 645 of the Companies Act of 1956 was relied on by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ict Courts conferred on them by the order of the Government in 1947. That section in so far as it is material runs thus: "Where any Central Act or Regulation is, after the commencement of this Act, repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under the rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
