9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor by the respondent-company on the ground of absence from three consecutive meetings of the Board under section 283(1)( g ) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') is therefore said to be illegal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court as the Company Court under section 10 read with section 2(11) of the Act is the only Court competent to grant the relief as, the registered office of the company is within the jurisdiction of this Court. The action of the respondent-company in depriving the petitioner of this status as Director is, according to the petitioner illegal, and is contrary to the provisions of section 283 of the Act. 3. Counsel for the company raised a preliminary objection regarding the mainta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious provisions of the Companies Act in relation to companies except to the extent such jurisdiction has been conferred on the Central Government and the Company Law Board or delegated to the District Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Civil Courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute of the nature now brought before the Court by the petitioner. According to him, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is curtailed by reason of the provisions of the Companies Act, which is a special enactment, and which has created a special forum for the adjudication of the disputes concerning the com-panies. 7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for petitioner referred to the decision rendered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. 9. With respect, I am unable to agree with the reasoning contained in these two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The view taken therein that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is curtailed in relation to all matters concerning companies, solely because the High Court is constituted the Company Court, is not supportable by any of the statutory provisions either in the Companies Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 10. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is couched in widest possible terms; that section reads thus: " Courts to try all civil suits unless barred The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in pursuance of sub-section (2); and ( b )where jurisdiction has been so conferred, the District Court in regard to matters falling within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred, in respect of companies having their registered offices in the district. 12. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred by the confer- ring of exclusive jurisdiction on the Court as defined in the Act, only in respect of certain matters relating to the company. The jurisdiction vested in the Company Court is to be ascertained from the specific substantive provisions of the Act. Section 2(11) defines the Court while section 10 specifies the Court. Neither of these provisions create jurisdic-tion with respect to all matters arising under the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Law Board, the Magistrate or the Central Government. 16. Similar is the view taken by this and some of the other High Courts in Mylavarapu Ramakrishna Rao v. Mothey Krishna Rao [1947] 17 Comp. Cas.63(Mad.), Thiruvalluvar Velanmai Kazhagam (P.)Ltd v. M.K. Seethai Achi [1988] 64 Comp. Cas. 304 (Mad.), R. Prakasam v. Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam [1980] 50 Comp. Cas. 611 (Ker.), Rajendran Menon v. Cochin Stock Exchange [1965] 1 Com. Law Journal 573, Prakash Roadlines Ltd. v. Vijaya Kumar Narang [1995] 83 Camp. Cas. 569 (Kar.), Avanthi Explosives (P.) Ltd v. Principal Subordinate Judge [1987] 62 Comp. Cas. 301 (AP) and Maharaja Exports v. Apparels Exports Promotion Council [1986] 60 Comp. Cas. 353 (Delhi). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
