9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany is a public limited company. The respondent Nos. 2 to 12 are looking after the management and administration of the company. Respondent Nos. 13, 14 and 17 claim to be the creditors of the company. The respondent No. 15 is a Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No. 16 is Deputy Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The petitioners had filed Company Petition No. 298 of 1998 for winding up of the respondent-company under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( the Act ). It is stated that the petitioners have filed the petition before the District Court at Kolhapur in bona fide belief that such a petition can be filed in the District Court and that the Court will have jurisdiction to try and entertain the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of the submission, the learned counsel has relied upon a Single Judge decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Alleppey Chit Fund (P.) Ltd., In re [1961] 31 Comp. Cas. 641 . 3. In my view, the opinion expressed by the Kerala High Court with regard to the interpretation of section 437 is the correct view. The power for conferring the jurisdiction on District Courts has been specifically conferred, under section 10(2), on the Central Government. If the intention had been otherwise, it would have specifically so provided. In fact, the language of section 437 will not permit the High Court to confer jurisdiction on a District Court, wherein no notification by the Government has been issued. The learned counsel for the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 is the Income-tax Department, which has sent notice to respondent No. 1 company. Respondent No. 16 is the Deputy Executive Engineer of M.S.E.B. who claimed the arrears of electricity from respondent No. 1. Thus, by obtaining an order of status quo from the District Court, the recovery of the amounts due have affectedly been stayed. 5. In my view, the company petition filed before the District Court, Kolhapur and the present petition are an abuse of the process of the Court and are misconceived. 6. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. 7. No costs. 8. The observations made above will not stand in the way of the petitioner in filing a company petition in the court of competent jurisdiction. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
