High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
NAVA SAMAJ LTD - Appellant
Versus
CIVIL JUDGE - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 101 Of 1965
Decided On : 11/02/1965
(2) Companies Act, 1956 - S. 10 - jurisdiction with respect to matters falling under Act-in connection with jurisdiction, place of accrual of cause of action is not relevant-it would be relevant only where cause of action is not covered by Act. [Para 11
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 - O. 7, R. 10 - return of plaint - joinder of several causes of action in one suit - want of jurisdiction over some - proper course is to return plaint. 1884 ILR 7 Mad. 171, followed. [Paras 11 & l5
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 - S. 115 - Constitution of India - Art. 227 - order in exercise of jurisdiction not vested - order can be interfered with under section 115 or Art. 227. AIR 1954 SC 215, followed. [Para 12
(5) Companies Act, 1956 - Ss. 10 & 2 (11) - whether Company Court has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters covered by Act.
Per Dixit, C.J.-The Courts nominated under the Act have exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matters covered by the Companies Act, and by necessary implication excludes jurisdiction of other Courts in regard to matters covered by the Companies Act. In connection with the exclusion of jurisdiction of other Courts; the line of inquiry is not whether there is any provision besides section 10 in the Companies Act giving the Company Court exclusive jurisdiction in company matters. But it is whether after having specified the Courts having jurisdiction under the Companies Act, the said Act contains an "otherwise" provision excluding the jurisdiction of the Company Court in matters falling under the Companies Act. Case law discussed. AIR 1947 Mad. 322 and AIR 1959 Ker 254, dissent from. AIR 1950 PC 81, explained. [Para 8
Per Pandey, J.-As provided by section 9 of the C.P.C. the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those of which the cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. It follows from this that the Civil Court will have jurisdiction with respect to all matters relating to a company involving rights of a civil nature in regard to which no express provision has been made in the Act unless their cognizance is impliedly barred, that is to say, barred on general principles of law or on grounds of public policy. In company law, it is a well established elementary principle that the Court will not interfere with the internal management of companies. But there is no provision in the Act which excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in regard to any of those matters. Even so, it does not necessarily follow from this that the Civil Court has concurrent jurisdiction in regard to all those matters. AIR 1959 Ker 254, dissent from.
It cannot, therefore, be accurate to say that if a matter is required by the provisions of the Act to be dealt with by the Company Court, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is, by necessary implication, excluded. In order to determine whether the Company Court has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with a particular matter relating to a company, the line of enquiry should be whether the Act has, in regard to that matter, created a right or liability not existing under the general law and has also, at the same time, given a particular and special remedy for enforcing it. Case law discussed. AIR 1928 Mad. 571 and AIR 1957 Mad. 702, explained. [Paras 17, 18 & 19
( 1 ) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution and Sections 115 and 151 of the C. P. C. for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order, dated the 18th February 1965 of the Civil Judge, First Class, Rajnandgaon, holding that his court has jurisdiction to try a suit filed by the opponent No. 2, Shri Hajarimal, and for a direction prohibiting the civil Court from proceeding with the suit or any application made therein, has been made in the following circumstances.
( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1, the Nava Samaj Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies act having its registered office at Nagpur in Maharashtra State. The main object of the Company, as mentioned in the Memorandum, is the printing and publishing of a news-paper called 'nagpur Times' at Nagpur. The second petitioner, the Nagpur times Trust, was brought into existence under a trust deed, dated the 9th May 1957 and is the managing agent of the Nava Samaj Ltd. The third and fourth petitioner, Shri K. K. Thakur and Dr. M. B. Niyogi, are the trustees of the Nagpur times Trust. The fifth petitioner is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the nava Samaj Ltd. The Company has an authorised capital of Rs. 10 lacs divided into (a) 38,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 25 each, and (b) 25,000 deferred shares of rs. 2 each. Out of the authorised capital, the total subscribed and paid-up capital of the Company is (a) 31,527 ordinary shares of Rs. 25 each of the total value of rs. 7,88,175, and (b) 25,000 deferred shares of Rs. 2 each of the total value of rs. 50,000. The deferred shares of Rs. 2 each and the ordinary shares carried equal voting rights. The deferred shares were held by five share-holders. On 22nd august 1947 the Company entered into an agreement of managing agency with "nava Samaj Pravartan", a partnership firm in which two of the five deferred share-holders were partners. This managing agency agreement was for a period of twenty years.
( 3 ) ON the coming into force of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Company was required under Sections 87 and 89 of the Act to bring about equality of voting rights between ordinary shares and deferred shares within one year of the commencement of the Act. The Company, however, applied to the Central Government on 26th March 1956 under Section 89 (4) of the Act for being exempted from the requirements of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 89. According to the petitioners, the Central Government, after making necessary enquiries as to whether the grant of exemption would or would not be in the public interest or in the interest of the Company required the Company to assign the deferred voting rights as well as the managing agent rights to independent trustees of "high eminence and impartiality' Accordingly, the Nagpur Times Trust was brought into existence by a deed, dated the 9th May 1957, and the trustees thereunder were given the managing agency and deferred voting rights. A new managing agency agreement was thereafter executed in favour of the trustees on 30th June 1959. Under this agreement, the term of the managing agency was for a period not exceeding five years with effect from 15th August 1960.
( 4 ) ON 29th July 1957, the Central Government made an order under Section 89 (4) of the Act exempting the Company permanently from the requirements of Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 89 in respect of the 25,000 deferred shares of rs. 2 each. It appears that some persons moved the Central Government for withdrawal of this exemption. On 24th March 1962 the Central Government made another order purporting to be under Section 89 (4) rescinding its earlier order, dated the 29th July 1957 granting exemption. Thereupon the petitioner-Company filed an application under Article 226 in the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)challenging the validity of the order of the Central Government, dated t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.