ORDER

1. The broad question that arises for consideration in the present application in revision is whether a company Judge has jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, though such power is not expressly conferred on the Judge by the provisions-of the Act. In particular the question for decision is whether a company Judge has jurisdiction to order a company tea deliver a copy of the register of the members of the company to a share-holder of the company. There is very little controversy about the facts. The opposite party Robert Menzies is a share-holder of the British India Corporation Ltd. He joined the Corporation in 1920 as a Secretary of the Corporation and in or about. March 1930 he was, in addition to his duties as Secretary, appointed to act as a Managing Director also. Mr. Menzies held the position of Secretary and Managing Director of the Corporation till April 1935 when he went on leave to England. During his absence on leave from India the Corporation informed him that his services were no longer required as certain retrenchments were being effected on grounds of economy. Mr. Menzies returned to India in the autumn of 1935 and he then, on 14th November, made an application to the Corporation for a copy of register of the members. Some correspondence followed between Mr. Menzies and the officers of the Corporation as regards the amount of fees to be paid by Mr. Menzies on account of the copy and eventually a sum of Rs. 500 was placed by Mr. Menzies at the disposal of the Corporation so far back as on 27th November 1935.

2. The Corporation, however, did not furnish the copy to Mr. Menzies and put him off by pretexts which can only be characterised as scandalous if not dishonest. We were informed today that the number of share-holders of the Corporation was 5600 and ordinarily it would have taken a couple of days to prepare a copy of the register of the members. No such copy was, however, furnished to Mr. Menzies till 13th January 1936, and during this interval the repeated reminders from Mr. Menzies fell on deaf ears. The only excuse that was held out by the Corporation for not complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 36 of the Act was that the staff at the disposal of the Corporation was not enough to cope with the current work and also to prepare the copy within a reasonable time. It was said in one of the letters sent by the Corporation that there was only one typist and he was asked to devote his spare time to the preparation of the copy. There was, however, nothing to indicate whether the typist had any spare time at his disposal and whether even the names of half a dozen shareholders were copied from the register of the members.

3. After waiting for considerable time Mr. Menzies did what any one in his position would have done. He sought the protection of the Company Court and filed an application before the District Judge of Cawnpore praying that the Corporation be ordered to supply him a copy of the names and addresses of the shareholders-of the Corporation immediately and also "to deal with them according to law." It may here be mentioned that the petition was filed in the Court of the District Judge as in accordance with the proviso-to Section 3 of the Act the Local Government has, by notification in the Local Official Gazette, empowered the District Judge' of Cawnpore to exercise jurisdiction under the Companies Act. The registered office of the Corporation is within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Cawnpore and, therefore, the petition was filed in the Court of the District Judge on 22nd January 1936. It would be noted that more than two months had by this date elapsed since the request was made by Mr. Menzies for the first time for a copy of register of the members. The learned District Judge fixed 31st of January for the disposal of the petition and notice of the date was given to the opposite parties, viz. the British India Corporation Ltd., through t