Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2016 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 60 - HC - Companies LawSingle Judge Jurisdiction under Section 392 of the Companies' Act, 1956 - Held that:- Except Section 446 (and dependent on the conditions which are to be fulfilled as spelt out by it) there is no other power under the Companies Act, authorizing the Company Court to exercise universal jurisdiction, as it were, and adjudicate disputes concerning third parties’ transactions with the company. Therefore, the power is, in a sense, sui generis and applicable only in the event of a winding up order being made. As correctly held by the impugned judgment, Section 446 and the phraseology it adopts precludes the exercise of a wide, unenumerated jurisdiction of the kind invoked by the appellants. Thus, Section 446 and the exclusive jurisdiction provided by it, subject to express preconditions, which regulate its exercise, rule out the existence of a wide, un-spelt residual jurisdiction under Section 392 which is both ubiquitous and unregulated. In other words, the maxim exclusio unis est exclusio alterius (which means "mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another") squarely applies to this case. The other feature peculiar to this case is that the power of the Company Court to decide upon matters and disputes which do not directly relate to its jurisdiction, apart from being limited in its operation to what is expressly stated in Section 446, is also excluded in relation to matters and causes which are to be tried by Tribunals and Courts of exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, it was ruled in Indian Bank v Official Liquidator [1998 (5) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] that even under Section 446, the Court does not possess the power to set aside the order of a tribunal constituted under a rent control legislation. Thus the Company Court acted correctly in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Section 392 having regard to the nature of reliefs claimed by the appellants
|