The jurisdiction of civil courts in matters related to companies is governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Central Government has the authority to confer jurisdiction on District Courts by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette.

RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner herein under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the first defendant in O. S. No. 63 of 1995, filed by the plaintiff first respondent herein in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The original plaintiff also filed I. A. No. 1011 of 1995, in the same proceedings.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff first respondent herein had filed the suit against the petitioner herein claiming various reliefs. It is stated by the plaintiff in her plaint in nutshell that she is entitled for different types of shares, compensation, etc. The prayer made by the plaintiff in the suit reads as follows :" (A) declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 3,500 shares of Rs. 10 each, out of 5,000 shares issued in lieu of 500 shares of Rs. 100 each by the first defendant; (b) to grant a consequential mandatory injunction directing defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to issue 3,500 shares of Rs. 10 each to the plaintiff which are lying with them; (c) declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 7,812 shares of Rs. 10 each under the promoters quota while the public issue was made by the first defendant in the years, 1994; (d) to grant a consequential mandatory injunction directing defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 to issue 7,812 shares of Rs. 10 each to par to the plaintiff with all the consequential benefits; (e) for recovery of Rs. 20,000 from defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and being the dividends payable by the first defendant to the plaintiff on her shares of 7,812; (f) for recovery of Rs. 4,55,000 from defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 as damages for their inaction and delay in sending the split shares in time when demanded by the plaintiff; and (g) to grant a mandatory injunction directing to issue to the plaintiff future rights, bonus issues and dividends as and when declared by the first defendants. "

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, she had also filed an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner with a prayer that the Advocate-Commissioner should visit the registered office of the first defendant-company, check all the account books, share certificates, etc. , for the purposes of filing a report in the court so that the first defendant-company may not tamper with the evidence which is likely to come before the court during the trial. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the Advocate-Commissioner, the present civil revision petition is filed by the first defendant-company under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) IT is also contended by the first defendant-petitioner herein that the court at Ramachandrapuram has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 6 ) THE original plaintiff, i. e. , the first respondent herein, had filed the suit for getting reliefs with the following averments; that she had invested a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards 500 shares of Rs. 100 each with the first defendant-company. It is further stated by her that the defendant No. 1 made a public issue of equity shares of Rs. 10 each at par. While making the public issue, the first defendant reserved 7,81,250 shares at Rs. 10 each for the promoters which she was not given though she is a promoter of the first defendant-company. It is the further case of the plaintiff that she is entitled for rights issue, which was not given to her by the first defendant-company. For all these reasons, she had filed the suit against defendant No. 1 and others with the prayers as stated in the earlier paragraphs of my order.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner first defendant submitted at the Bar that the civil court at Ramachandrapuram has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein invited my attention to section 10 of the Companies Act, which reads as follows :"jurisdiction of courts.- (1) The court having jurisdiction under this Act shall be - (a) the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered offic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document