TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake Palace Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd. and in his capacity as such has sought this direction. This court issued notices to the respondents. The respondents have appeared before this court, but have not submitted any reply to the petition and the learned counsel for the respondents have raised certain contentions before me with regard to the maintainability of the petition. Mr. L. R. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, have submitted that for seeking any relief under section 163 as well as under section 209(4) of the Act, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Reference has been made to the notification issued under sub-section (2) of section 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in my opinion, in the light of the notification, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 163 of the Act, but if any petition lies under section 209 of the Act, such an application would lie only to this court. Now, it remains to be examined whether any application for inspection of the documents specified in sub-section (4) of section 209 of the Act lies or not. Sub-section (4) of section 209 of the Act provides that books of account and other books and papers shall be open to inspection by any director during business hours. A bare perusal of the provision shows that it confers a right of inspection on the directors of all books of account and other books and papers. The question arises whether such a right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forced. It is the look out of the director only to launch the prosecution or to seek enforcement of his right by initiating the proceedings before the court which has jurisdiction to entertain such a petition. The general maxim in "ubi jus ibi remedium" (where there is a right, there is a remedy). Here sub-section (4) of section 209 of the Act confers a statutory right of inspection and the court which has jurisdiction under the Act, in my opinion, possesses powers to enforce that statutory right. It has been urged that the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, do not envisage any such petition and what petitions lie, are specified. Petitions provided under the Rules are exhaustive. I am unable to agree with this submission as well. As already s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
