9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the agreement acquired the shares and got them registered in their own names. The company court dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner has no case that he had applied to the company for registration in the manner specified by the statute as transferee of its shares and that in the proceedings under section 155 of the Act the direction regarding registration of a transfer cannot be granted overlooking the statutory prescriptions regarding the mode of transfer. The learned judge also observed that the agreement set up by the petitioner itself is in dispute in O.S. No. 245 of 1976 and the matter is pending in appeal before the District Court. The learned judge further held that in view of the dispute between the parties it may not be desirable even if permissible to pronounce on the question of title at this stage. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek or pursue other remedies available in law. As against that decision, the petitioner filed M.P.A. No. 547 of 1981. A Division Bench of this court allowed the appeal giving the following directions (see [1987] 62 Comp. Cas. 553 at page 566) : "(1)The appellant' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in M.F.A. No. 547 of 1981 as clarified by the order in C.M.P. No. 21744 of 1987. The contention of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is that the judgment in M.F.A. No. 547 of 1981 cannot be implemented as the court lacked jurisdiction in entertaining the issues involved in the matter. In other words, the argument is that the judgment in the M.F.A. cannot be enforced as it is a nullity. Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the learned single judge was justified in holding that the company petition filed by the petitioner cannot be allowed as it is not within the domain of the court to grant the reliefs prayed for in the petition. According to him, the directions contained in the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be implemented as the court lacked jurisdiction in issuing the same. Counsel relied on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340, for the proposition that a decree passed by the court without jurisdiction is a nullity and it can be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon. In the said decision, the Supreme Court held that it is the fundamental and well established principle that a decree passed by a court without juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve taken part in the proceedings before the company court and before the Division Bench and raised their contentions to be decided by the court and as the decision of the Division Bench in the M.F.A. has become final, they cannot be allowed to take up the issue again on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction in entertaining the M.F.A. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain a civil cause cannot be assumed unless a particular statute contains an express provision to that effect or leads to a necessary and inevitable" implication of that nature. Merely because the Companies Act provides for certain remedies it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of civil courts to deal with a case brought before it in respect of some of the matters covered by the Act is barred. The validity of the decision in the M.F.A. cannot be challenged when it is sought to be enforced on the ground of lack of jurisdiction especially when it cannot be said that the court lacked jurisdiction in dealing with the dispute. In Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons v. State of A.P., AIR 1964 SC 322, the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that a special statute provides for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er words, as the judgment in the M.F.A. has been confirmed by the Supreme Court when the special leave petition was dismissed the respondents cannot advance the contention that the court lacked jurisdiction in entertaining the petition. The settled legal position is that the executing court can go behind a decree only if there was lack of inherent jurisdiction and not on the ground that there was erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. It will not be open to a party to challenge a judgment when it is sought to be enforced on the ground that the judgment is based on wrong conclusions or on erroneous findings or on wrong application of law. As the remedy of the aggrieved party in such cases is to challenge the same in appeal or revision as the case may be and not to challenge it when it is sought to be enforced, the respondents challenge in this case against the judgment cannot be sustained. In the present case, lack of jurisdiction was pleaded by the respondents and that has been considered and found against them. So they cannot raise the very same point in the executing court. The inescapable conclusion is that the court executing the decree cannot go behind it and question its val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As the Division Bench has considered the respective contentions of the parties and came to a particular conclusion, the aggrieved party cannot challenge it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Division Bench considered the challenge against the maintainability of the petition under section 155 of the Act and held in favour of the petitioner. Even if it is assumed that the Division Bench judgment is erroneous, it will not be possible to hold that it is a nullity. Even a wrong decision on the question of jurisdiction cannot be considered as a nullity. It is also pertinent to note that an application was filed for appointment of a receiver during execution proceedings. That petition was allowed on February 20, 1989. That would show that the decree has been executed in part by appointing a receiver. Having participated in the proceedings before the company court and having raised the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the court and being worsted in the M.F.A. and also in view of the fact that the receiver has been appointed to the property the contention raised in execution regarding nullity of the judgment cannot be countenanced. The objection raised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
