Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2022 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 935 - HC - Companies LawJurisdiction of Court to entertain the writ petition - Jurisdiction of ROC to deal with complaint - effect of the pending Commercial Suit No.584 of 2017 on the complaint - Non-issuance of duplicate certificate - non-payment of dividend - non-receipt of notice for general meeting - dispute sub-judice before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay - HELD THAT:- In case of Damomal Kausomal Raisinghani vs. Union of India & Ors. [1965 (12) TMI 154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the place where the consequences of the impugned order fell on the Petitioner would be a place where at least the cause of action in part would arise. The Petitioners have specifically averred that the Petitioner No.1 would be able to trade with the shares in Mumbai and therefore, impugned order of ROC has affected Petitioners’ rights in Mumbai. The said averments have remained uncontroverted. Thus, it is clear that the consequence of the impugned order fell on the Petitioner at Mumbai where atleast the cause of the action in part has taken place - there is no substance in the contention raised by the Respondents that this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with this Writ Petition. Whether ROC has jurisdiction to deal with complaint dated 1st December 2015 filed by the Petitioner No.1? - What is the effect of pending Commercial Suit No.584 of 2017 on the said complaint dated 1st December 2015. 20? - HELD THAT:- The factual position on record clearly show that although Petitioner No.1 remained absent when the hearing of the said complaint was scheduled on 28th November 2018 as they have not been served with the notice of hearing but all along they requested for another date of hearing and without granting hearing, order was passed. It is further significant to note that this is not a case where after 28th November 2018 i.e. after scheduled date of hearing the ROC has immediately passed the impugned order. In fact, the impugned order has been passed after a period of four months after the said scheduled date of hearing. Thus, there was no impediment for ROC to grant hearing to the Petitioner No.1. It is clear that the impugned order is passed without giving hearing to the Petitioner No. 1 and without following principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has requested for fresh hearing and Petitioner No.1 has given valid reason for the absence. The factual position on record clearly demonstrates that the Petitioner No.1 from time to time requested for hearing even prior to 28th November 2018 and immediately after 28th November 2018 also. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone. The impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside - Petition disposed off.
|