9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares, the value of each share being Rs. 100/-. The shares purchased by him were registered with the Registrar of the Companies at Shillong in accordance with the provisions of the Act under registration Folio No. 48 and Certificate No. 87: he was accordingly issued a share certificate dated 27-2-2002 in his favour. As a shareholder of the company, he has a right over the company, which cannot be taken away without following the procedure laid down by law. According to him, on 17-6-2011, he was surprised to receive the letter dated 10-6-2011 from the respondent-company informing him that the shares allotted to him were being cancelled in connection with a settlement/compromise sought to be arrived at between the respondent-company and the other litigating parties in the said company petition pending before the Company Law Board (respondent 1). The petitioner thereupon collected detailed information about the pending case and was surprised to find that the case had been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 27 for cancellation of the shares allotted by the respondent-company in the year 2001-2002 including his shares; he was, however, not impleaded as a party-respondent in that case e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under section 10-F of the Act as well as section 405 of the Act to redress his grievances; having failed to exhaust the alternative statutory remedy provided for by law, the writ petition is not maintainable and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. He places strong reliance on the following decisions of the Apex court, namely, Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim [2007] 75 SCL 421 /11 SCC 335; Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. v. Tadi Adhinarayana Reddy [1997] 13 SCL 118 / 90 Comp. Cas. 383; Stridewell Leathers (P.) Ltd. v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P.) Ltd. [1994] 74 Comp. Cas. 139/1 SCC 34 and Union of India v. Madras Bar Association [2010] 11 SCC 1, to fortify his submissions. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to dismiss the writ petition at the very threshold. Per contra, Mr. GS Massar, the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner, submits that when the company is registered at Shillong, filing of the writ petition at some other place is without jurisdiction, and the writ petition should only be filed at the place where registered office of the company is located or where the principal officers of the company reside. In other words, his contention is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, there can be no dispute that the case of the petitioner does not come within the purview of Article 226(1) of the Constitution, and is, therefore, maintainable. The next question for consideration is, whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226(2) of the Constitution. In other words, whether the cause of action for the writ petition, wholly or in part, arises within the jurisdiction of this Court so as to enable him to invoke Article 226(2)? The issue once again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Alchemists Ltd. case (supra). In that case, the writ petitioners contended that at least a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the following facts: (i) the appellant company has its registered and corporate office at Chandigarh; (ii) the appellant company carries on business at Chandigarh; (iii) the offer of the appellant company was accepted on 20-2-2004 and the acceptance was communicated to it at Chandigarh; (iv) the Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent visited Chandigarh the bona fides of the appellant company; (v) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fitable to refer to the following conclusions of the Apex Court in Alchemists Ltd. (supra) at para 37, which succinctly explain the legal position: "37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by this court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a "part of the cause of action, nothing less than that." 8. In the case at hand, the only ground upon which the petitioner seeks to confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain this writ petition directed against the proceedings in question pending before the Company Law in the Principal Bench, Delhi is that the respondent-company is a company registered with the Registrar of Companies at Shillong, and has its registered office a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
