SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Bom) 163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Mudholkar J.R. , J.
Appellants: Chintaman Jagannath Kathikar
Vs.
Respondent: Gandhi Sewa Samaj Ltd. and Anr.
Civil Appln. Nos. 353 and 354 of 1957
Decided On: 10.04.1957
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.S. Bobde, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: S.W. Dhabe, Adv.

The Central Government has the authority to empower District Courts to exercise jurisdiction in matters arising under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, including those falling under Section 155.

Headnote:

COMPANY LAW - JURISDICTION - SECTION 10 OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPOWERING DISTRICT COURT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION - SAVING OF ORDERS, RULES, ETC. IN FORCE AT COMMENCEMENT OF ACT - SECTION 645 OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, SECTION 24 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants filed applications under Section 155 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, seeking a direction to the non-applicants to produce certain records and registers in the Court and effect a transfer of certain shares in the Register of the Members of the Company. The non-applicants raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applications.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the applications. It interpreted Section 10 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and concluded that the Central Government had the authority to empower District Courts to exercise jurisdiction in matters arising under the Act, including those falling under Section 155. The Court further held that the notification issued by the then Government of the Central Provinces and Berar in 1925, conferring jurisdiction upon the District Court at Nagpur in regard to all matters arising under the Companies Act, 1913, could not be deemed to be in force after the commencement of the Companies Act of 1956.

Issues: 1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the applications under Section 155 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. 2. Whether the notification issued by the then Government of the Central Provinces and Berar in 1925, conferring jurisdiction upon the District Court at Nagpur in regard to all matters arising under the Companies Act, 1913, continued to be in force after the commencement of the Companies Act of 1956.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 10 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and concluded that the Central Government had the authority to empower District Courts to exercise jurisdiction in matters arising under the Act, including those falling under Section 155. 2. The Court held that the notification issued by the then Government of the Central Provinces and Berar in 1925, conferring jurisdiction upon the District Court at Nagpur in regard to all matters arising under the Companies Act, 1913, could not be deemed to be in force after the commencement of the Companies Act of 1956, as it was not an order made by the Central Government under the Act of 1956.

Final Decision: The Court overruled the preliminary objection and held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the applications. The applications were directed to be heard on merits.

Judgment -

1. This order will also govern Civil Application No. 354 of 1957. Both these applications have been made under Section 155 of the Indian Companies Act (No. 1 of 1956) and the relief claimed in these applications is for the issue of a direction to the non-applicants to produce certain records and registers in the Court and require them to effect a transfer of certain shares in the Register of the Members of the Company.

2. A preliminary objection is raised by Shri Dhabe, on behalf of the non-applicants to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these applications.

3. Section 10 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, deals with the jurisdiction of Courts in the matter of applications made under that Act. Under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10, the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate shall be the Court having jurisdiction in regard to the matters arising under the Companies Act. There is however an exception to this. That exception is contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act. Under that sub-section, the Central Government can by notification empower any District Court to exercise all or any of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act upon the Court, except in regard to certain matters.

It is common ground that there is no restriction on the conferral of the power on any District Court with regard to matters falling under Section 155 of the Act. While it is admitted that no notification has so far been issued by the Central Government conferring jurisdiction upon the District Court at Nagpur in regard to any of the matters arising under the Companies Act, it is said that by a notification issued on 17th August 1925, by the then Government of the Central Provinces and Berar, jurisdiction was conferred upon the District Court at Nagpur, in regard to all matters arising under the Companies Act, 1913. This notification, according to Shri Dhabe, still continues to be in force and that therefore it is the District Court at Nagpur which can entertain these applications and not the High Court. In support of his argument the learned counsel relied upon Section 645 of the Indian Companies Act of 1956. That provision runs as follows:

"Saving of orders, rules, etc. in force at commencement of Act.

Nothing in this Act shall affect any order, rule, regulation, appointment, conveyance, mortgage, deed, document or agreement made, fee directed, resolution passed, direction given, proceeding taken, instrument executed or issued, or thing done, under or in pursuance of any previous companies law; but any such order, rule, regulation, appointment, Conveyance, mortgage, deed, document, agreement, fee, resolution, direction, proceeding, instrument or thing shall, if in force at the commencement of this Act, continue to be in force, and so far as it could have been made, directed, passed, given, taken, executed, issued or done under or in pursuance of this Act, shall have effect as if made, directed, passed, given, taken, executed, issued, or done under or in pursuance of this Act".

According to Shri Bobde, this provision does not help the non-applicants inasmuch as it makes no reference to a notification. In my opinion, an omission to make any reference to a notification does not stand in the way of the non-applicants. A notification is merely a way or a manner of publishing an order made by an authority competent to make it. What Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires and what the corresponding provision, that is, Section 3 of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, required was an order of an appropriate authority which was published in the official gazette. Therefore, any order made under Section 3 of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, could be deemed to have been continued by Section 645, provided the other conditions of Section 646 were fulfilled. Section 645 provides that an order made under the old law shall continue to be




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top