9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the petitioner was considered for 1200 shares instead of 12000 shares and the cheque of Rs. 60,000 was encashed but it was considered by the respondent that only a sum of Rs. 6,000 had been paid. 2. A complaint was filed by the petitioner before the Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum vide its order dated 1-7-1995 held that in view of the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das [1995] 1 SCL 19 (SC), the petitioner does not fall within the category of consumer and as such, the complaint is not maintainable. 3. Now this petition under section 10 has been filed. Section 10 provides with the jurisdiction of the High Court and it is mentioned that the Court having jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt is having the jurisdiction. All the powers which are conferred on different authorities/Courts or which are not conferred upon this Court cannot be tried under section 10. 6. The provision of rule 11 of the Company (Court) Rules provides as under: "11. ( a ) Petitions. The following applications shall be made by petition (1) Applications under section 17 to confirm an alteration of the memorandum of association. (2) Applications under section 79 to sanction issue of shares at a discount. (3) Applications under section 101 to confirm reduction of share capital. (4) Applications under section 107 to cancel any variation of the rights of holders of any class of shares. (5) Applications under section 141 for rectificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 522 to continue a voluntary winding up subject to the supervision of the Court. (18) Applications for a declaration under section 542 (XI Schedule) in the course of proceedings under section 397 or 398 that a person who was knowing by a party to carrying on business in a fraudulent manner shall be personally liable for all or any of the debts or other liabilities of the company. (19) Applications by a creditor or member under section 543 (XI Schedule) in the course of proceedings under section 397 or 398, to enquire into the conduct of any of the persons mentioned in section 543 (XI Schedule) and compel him to repay or restore any money or property to the company or pay compensation. (20) Applications under section 599 for declaring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenary or residuary jurisdiction. 9. If there is any dispute between the subscriber and the company, the same could be tried in a Civil Court. Even if any provision is contravened by the company power has been given for prosecution of the company, but that has to be exercised by the Court having jurisdiction and not this Court. A prayer has been made that the Registrar of Companies should be directed to file a complaint against the company for prosecution on account of violation of the provisions of the Act. If the petitioner feels that he himself can file a complaint, he can do so also he can move to the Registrar when this Court is not having the jurisdiction under section 10, the order cannot be passed directing the Registrar of Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Judge on the Division Bench was not prepared to go to that extent and said: "16. As I read the definition of the Court in clause ( a ) to section 2( 11) of the Act [the one in clause ( b ) not being material for this case], it merely enacts that, for determining the court competent to deal with any matter relating to a company (other than an offence against the Act), one must refer to section 10 of the Act for ascertaining which court has jurisdiction under the Act with respect to that matter relating to that company. The reason for this is obvious from the provision of section 10. Where the jurisdiction in regard to the particular matter under consideration has been conferred on 'District Courts under sub-section(2) of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... un ambiguous language or necessary implication thereof. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be considered as impliedly excluded. 13. The observation of Privy Council in Burlana v. Earle [1902] AC 83, 93 that it is elementary principle of the law relating to joint stock companies that the court will not interfere with the internal management of compa- nies acting within their powers and in fact has no jurisdiction to do so, is also relevant in the present case. All civil actions are cognizable by a civil court under section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 unless the jurisdic-tion of the civil court is either expressly or by necessary implication barred. 14. The alleged breach of section 61 has provided th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
