This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the trail court on additional issue No.2 framed by it and the trial court answered the said issue concerning the jurisdiction of the court in the negative and consequently held that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Aggrieved by the said decision the plaintiff has come up before this Court.

2. Briefs facts necessary for the purpose of this order are that, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration to the effect that the transfer of shares in favour of the 2nd defendant by the 1st respondent herein was illegal and also sought for an order of mandatory injunction against the defendants. The said prayer made in the context of the plaintiff alleging in her pleading that her husband during his lifetime wanted some share certificates held by him in the 1st respondent-company to be transferred in favour of his daughter and her husband, but the shares were not transferred. On the other hand, the 2nd defendant before the trial court assured the plaintiff that he will get the shares transferred to her name and believing this the plaintiff handed over the share certificates to the 2nd defendant in good faith and following the death of the plaintiffs husband the 2nd defendant committed fraud, cheating and forgery and breach of trust and got all the shares transferred to his own name. It is on this pleading, the plaintiff sought for declaration that the transfer of shares in favour of the 2nd defendant is illegal and void and for mandatory injunction.

3. The defendants contested the said suit of the plaintiff and the learned Judge of the trial court after framing necessary issues took up additional issue No.2 for consideration and the said issue related to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the matter in the face of a prior bar under Section 15-Y of the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (‘SEBI Act’ for short).

4. Learned Judge of the trial court, after hearing both the parties in respect of the jurisdictional issue concluded that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and as such suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable. In the course of its order, the trial court considered the provisions of Sections 15-Y and 15-I of the SEBI Act and held that in view of the bar contained in Section 15-Y, the suit itself is not maintainable before the civil court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court erred in answering additional issue No.2 in favour of the defendants and in doing so, the trial court did not consider as to whether the relief sought for by the plaintiff was one such matter which could be brought within the purview of Section 15-I of the SEBI Act or without doing such an exercise, straight away the trial court dismissed the suit on a plain reading of section 15-Y of the SEBI Act and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri Vamsi Krishna for the 1st respondent relied on Section 111-A of the Companies Act, 1956 to contend that the subject matter of the present suit is one that comes within the purview of the Company Law Board and referring to Section 111 of the Companies Act and to sub-section (7) of Section 111-A, learned counsel submitted that the provisions of sub-sections (5), (7), (9), (10) and (12) of Section 111 will also be applicable as far as may be to the proceedings before the Company Law Board and a reading together of these provisions therefore, takes out the case from the purview of the civil court.

7. Having thus heard both sides and after going through the above provisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties, the point for consideration is as to whether the impugned order passed by the trial court can be held to be sustainable in law.

8. Section 15-Y of the SEBI Act reads as under:

“15-Y. Civil Cour