The power to modify a sanctioned scheme is essential for removing unanticipated obstacles and for its smooth functioning. The Company Court's power is limited and excluded in relation to matters and causes which are to be tried by Tribunals and Courts of exclusive jurisdiction.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. All these appeals under Section 483 of the Companies' Act, 1956 (hereafter "the Act") are directed against the common judgment and order of a learned Single Judge (hereafter referred to as "the Company Judge"), declining to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 392 of the Act.

2. The brief facts are that M/s. Northern India Goods Transport Company (Private) Limited (hereafter "the Company"), one of the leading and well known transporters in India at some point of time was incorporated in 1949. The balance sheets of the company as on 31.12.1966 reflected losses. This led to the company facing financial difficulties and several winding-up proceedings were filed by its creditors. The balance sheet for the period ending December 1966, reflected substantial assets of the company valued at Rs.21,18,319.37/-. These assets were vehicles, buildings, rented buildings, godowns and other buildings, furniture and realizable outstanding amounts and advances. Several applications were moved under Sections 391 and 392 of the Act, proposing Schemes of Arrangement. Ultimately, by order dated 26.05.1978, the Scheme of Arrangement (hereafter "the Scheme") was accepted with certain modifications, proposed by one Pritam Singh in C.A. 444/1974. Consequently, all winding-up petitions were adjourned sine die and were to be revived if the Scheme failed. The Court granted liberty to the parties and others interested in the Scheme to apply to it for directions necessary to implement it. When the winding-up proceedings were pending, on 21.01.1972, the Company Board superseded its own Board of Directors and appointed an Administrator to oversee the affairs and activities of the company. This appointment continued even after sanctioning of the Scheme. During the intervening period, the dues of all creditors were settled and apparently at the time the impugned judgment was delivered, the dues of income tax authorities were unpaid.

3. In this background of circumstances, several applications, (C.A. Nos. 323/1990, 324/1990, 471/1990, 472/1990, 610/1991, 612/1991, 634/1991, 750/1991 and 759/1993) were filed. The relevant claims in these applications were for directions to retrieve possession of various properties, of which the company was a tenant at some point in time. It was contended that the company was in possession of these premises and was using it for its business. The company contended that directions under Section 392 of the Act were necessary for the proper implementation of the Scheme.

4. The respondents were third parties and they contested the claim of the applicant/company on diverse grounds. Some of them alleged that they were lawful tenants of the premises, which was made over to them by the landlord after the previous tenant, i.e the company had been evicted. These third party respondents also stated that their possession was settled since they were paying rents to the concerned landlords. Additionally, it was urged that the rent legislation applicable and in force in various States protected their possession and that the company could not seek recourse to Section 392.

5. The appellants had relied upon the order dated 26.05.1978, particularly, Clause 8 of the sanctioned Scheme which talked about the jurisdiction of the Company Court to oversee its implementation and the supervision and control to be exercised by the Court. The said stipulation reads as follows:

"That the Company Court shall have jurisdiction regarding the disputes between company's creditors, contributories and propounders regarding the amounts to be recovered under the scheme and the interpretation of the scheme. Any claim by or against the company shall be instituted before the Company Court. However, the Company Court will be free to direct the parties to get the matter decided in the ordinary civil court if it is found that the matter cannot be decided by the Company Court either because of its complexity or because it requires a trial on facts