Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2003 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (7) TMI 481 - SC - Companies LawWhether the High Court was justified in issuing a direction that its earlier direction contained in order dated 12-3-1993 directing the Appellate Board to dispose of the appeal within three months need not be adhered to, if Ramesh Chander Agarwal files an application for stay of the inquiry by the District Magistrate during the pendency of the civil suit? Whether the civil court had any jurisdiction to entertain the suit? Held that:- Appeal allowed. The dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not a dispute under the provisions of the Companies Act. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon the civil courts to determine all dispute of civil nature unless the same is barred under a statute either expressly or by necessary implication. Bar of jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred. A provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of civil court requires strict interpretation. The court, it is well-settled, would normally lean in favour of construction, which would uphold retention of jurisdiction of the civil court. The burden of proof in this behalf shall be on the party who asserts that the civil court’s jurisdiction is ousted. Even otherwise, the civil court’s jurisdiction is not completely ousted under the Companies Act, 1956. We fail to understand and rather it is strange as to how the High Court while rejecting relief to the original plaintiff (late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal), granted a similar relief in favour of the first respondent herein.
|