H. Baruah, J.

1. Challenging the legality and propriety of order dated 12.5.2009 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Shillong in Misc. Case No. 13(H) of 2009 arising out of Title Suit No. 8(H) of 2009, this civil revision under Article 227 of the constitution has been preferred by the petitioners, who are permanent Members of the respondent-company.

2. The petitioners herein are the permanent Members of the respondent-company, namely, Shillong Club Ltd., a registered company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). The affairs of the company as aforesaid is vested in the Managing Committee consisting of seven members who are deemed to be the directors of the said company within the meaning of Section 83(a) of the Act. The legal relationship between the petitioners and the respondent-company is governed by the provisions of the Act and the articles and memorandum of association of the respondent-company. The petitioners and other members of the respondent-company submitted a requisition dated 4.5.2009 for convening an extraordinary general meeting ('EGM') per provision of the Article 54 of the articles of association read with provision of the Act for discussion of the matters incorporated therein. When the said requisition was before the Executive Committee, he respondent-company instituted a Title Suit No. 8(H) of 2009 in the court of Asstt. District Judge, Shillong praying for a decree for the reliefs as claimed therein along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction against the petitioners. The learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong having been filed this application, without issuing notice to the petitioners-opposite parties, vide impugned order granted ad-interim injunction restraining and preventing the petitioners from exercising their rights under Article 54 of the articles of the Association of the respondent-company. The petitioners being aggrieved thereby have approached this Court by the present petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India.

3. Heard Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Counsel for the petitioners. And also heard Mr. S. Sen, learned Counsel for the respondent-company at length.

4. Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Counsel for the petitioners at the very out set of his argument submitted that civil courts jurisdiction in entertaining the affairs of the company is barred by Section10GB of the Act, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong is without jurisdiction and cannot sustain in law and in that view of the matter this Court has the jurisdiction to set aside and quash the aforesaid impugned order by exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew submitted that the petitioners herein being the permanent members of the respondent-company along with others have unfettered rights to requisition for convention of an EGM. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 54 of the articles of the association, this right being the internal affairs of the company is not liable to be challenged in a court of law. For resolving such dispute and other disputes among the members and the Directors of the company provisions have been provided in the Companies Act itself. Since Section 10GB of the Act oust the jurisdiction of the civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter, it is within the domain of the tribunal where such jurisdiction lies. Where no such tribunal is in existence the jurisdiction lies with the company bench of the High Court, but the respondent-company without approaching such tribunal or the company bench of the High Court approached the court of Assistant District Judge, Shillong by filing a title suit seeking reliefs contained therein along with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and2 of CPC. Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, therefore, submitted that when Section 10G of the Act ou