( 1 ) THE three appeals Nos. 4, 5 and 7, all of 1983, arise out of a composite order passed by Company Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice J. S. Verma, by his order dated 3rd Oct. 1983 in Company Petition No. 5 of 1981. This order disposes of a prayer under S. 397 of the Companies Act and Ss. 398 and 155 of the Companies Act. The prayer under S. 397 was rejected and against this the present appeal is No. 4 of 1983. Prayer under S. 398 has been partly allowed and, therefore, appeal No. 7 of 1983 is preferred against that part of the order and as the prayer under S. 155 was rejected, an appeal is preferred which is appeal No. 5 of 1983.

( 2 ) IN all these three appeals the question of maintainability of the appeals arises in view of the abolition of Letters Patent Appeals in Cl. 10 by the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981, passed by the State Legislature and which received the assent of the President on 21st June 1981. At the time of hearing on the question of maintainability of the appeals, a question was raised that the Letters Patent Appeals which were provided in Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of the Nagpur High Court have been abolished by the Act mentioned above and this Act was passed by the State Legislature and the State Legislature is not competent to pass this Act as it is not within the scope of Entry 11a in the Concurrent List but it clearly falls within the ambit of Entry 78 of List I and, therefore by this Act the State Legislature was not competent to abolish the Letters Patent Appeals which lay to the Division Bench against the judgment of learned single Judge in Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent. As this question pertained to the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Notice was given to the learned Advocate General who happened to be present at the time of hearing. It was also brought to our notice that in fact it may need reconsideration of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Shri Justice J. S. Verma and Hon'ble Shri Justice M. L. Malik, although in motion hearing, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1 of 1982, by their order dated 30th Sept. 1982 and, therefore, this matter has been placed before the Full Bench.

( 3 ) THE question that is before us is as to whether a right of appeal conferred under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of the Nagpur High Court could be taken away by the Act referred to above.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that Entry 78 in List I conferred jurisdiction on the Parliament to constitute and organise the High Courts whereas Entry 95 empowered the Parliament to pass laws in respect of jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List. It was further contended that in List II, Entry 3 conferred jurisdiction on the State Legislature to provide for officers and servants of the High Court and procedure in rent and revenue courts. By Entry 65 in List II the State Legislature is empowered to legislate in respect of jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Supreme Court in relation to the matters enumerated in this List. In List III, i. e. the Concurrent List, Entry 11a provides for administration of justice; constitution and organisation of all courts, except the Supreme Court and the High Courts, whereas Entry 46 provides for jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Supreme Court, in respect of matters enumerated in this List. It was, therefore, contended that the general jurisdiction of the High Court would only be within the ambit of Entry 78 of List I and not within Entry 11a of List III. According to the learned counsel, Entry 11a earlier was a part of Entry 3 of List II but was lifted from List II and introduced as Entry 11a in List HI by the forty-second Amendment in 1976. It is contended by learned counsel that Entry 11a talks of administration of justice; constitution and organisation of all courts, except the