Judgment

VERMA, J.:- Leave granted.

2. The main question for decision in this appeal is the meaning of the expression "the High Court" in S. 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 which has been inserted in the principal Act by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988 with effect from 31-5-1991. The controversy is whether the High Court to which the appeal lies u/S. 10F from an order of the Company Law Board is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company is situate or it is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the Company Law Board makes the order under appeal.

3. The material facts giving rise to the above question are only a few, as stated hereafter. A petition u/S. 397/ 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed on behalf of the appellant, Stridewell Leathers Private Ltd. before the Company Law Board in respect of the company known as Shoe Specialities Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Madras. On 28-5-1993, the Company Law Board in the Principal Bench at Delhi made an order in that petition against which an appeal was filed u/S. 10F in the Delhi High Court by a shareholder, respondent No. 1. The Company, Shoe Specialities Pvt. Ltd. also filed an appeal against the same order of the Company Law Board in the Madras High Court (CMA No. 793/ 93) which is pending. A preliminary objection to maintainability of the appeal in the Delhi High Court was raised by the present appellants in the appeal filed in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court rejected the preliminary objection on 29-7-1993 and admitted that appeal. This appeal by special leave is against the Delhi High Courts order dated 29-7-1993 rejecting the preliminary objection and holding the appeal to be maintainable in the Delhi High Court.

4. The contention of Shri F. S. Nariman, learned counsel for the appellants is that the expression "the High Court" in S. l0F must mean the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate and, therefore, in the present case, the appeal u/S. l0F of the Companies Act lies in the High Court instead of the Delhi High Court, since the registered office of the concerned company is situate in Madras. In short, the submission of Shri Nariman is that the scheme of the Companies Act gives this clear indication which is not nullified by any thing contained in S. l0F or the object for making this amendment. In reply, Shri A.K. Sen and Shri Shanti Bhushan, on behalf of the respondents contended that S. l0F must be construed as conferring jurisdiction on the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the Company Law Board makes the order under appeal. Shri Sen contended that S. 10 (l)(a) does not provide any aid to the construction of the expression "the High Court" in S. IOF since S. 10 relates to the original jurisdiction and not to the forum of appeal provided by S. l0F. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the transfer of original jurisdiction from the High Courts to the Company Law Board in certain matters resulting in conferment of jurisdiction in such matters only in the Company Law Board instead of several High Courts is indicative of the scheme that the appeal under S. 10F from an order of the Company Law Board must also lie only to the centralised forum, namely, the High Court having jurisdiction over the Company Law Board at the place of its location where the order under appeal is made. Shri Shanti Bhushan also placed reliance on clause 11 of the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court which by the historical process continues to be applicable to the Delhi High Court as a further argument to support this submission and to contend that the appeal in the present case lies to the Delhi High Court since the order was made by the Company Law Board at Delhi.

5. In view of the significance of this question which is bound to arise in several cases here