TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ?" The trial court also directed that the preliminary issue be heard first. The petitioners-original plaintiffs are shareholders of defendant No. 1 company. As it appears from the order of the learned trial court judge, the case of the plaintiffs in both the suits is described in para 2 of the order. As regards this description, there is no dispute. Hence, the relevant part is reproduced herein below : "The plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit No. 3181 of 1987 challenging purchase of certain equity shares of NOCIL in 1983-84,1984-85 and 1985-86, the purchase of certain non-convertible debentures of NOCIL in 1982-83, resolutions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 purported to have been passed at the annual general meeting of defendant No. 1 company held o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The defendants appeared in the suit and resisted the suit on the facts as well as on law points. It was inter alia contended that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendants took out chamber summons exhibits 47 and 48 in Civil Suit No. 3181 of 1987 and chamber summons exhibits 40 and 41 in Civil Suit No. 3182 of 1987. The defendants prayed that the preliminary issue as to jurisdiction be raised and be ordered to be decided as a preliminary issue. By order dated February 17, 1988, the learned trial court judge rejected the applications by a detailed order. The order passed by the trial court rejecting the applications filed by the defendant-company was challenged by way of Civil Revision Applications Nos. 251 and 253 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordance with law. After the aforesaid order the matter was remanded and heard again by the learned trial court judge. The trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application as per order dated September 9, 1988, and gave a direction to raise the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide the suits. It is against this order passed by the trial court that these revision applications have been filed. The trial court has committed a jurisdictional error in holding that the decision of this court rendered in the case of Sheth Mohanlal Ganpatram v. Shri Sayaji Jubilee Cotton and Jute Mills Co. Ltd. [1964] 34 Comp. Cas. 777 was not required to be considered at this stage. In para 49 of the reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Companies Act, 1956, would require recording of evidence. Without recording evidence this question could not have been decided. The trial court has committed a jurisdictional error in not following the binding decision of this court. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that all the issues be decided together. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the learned single judge of this court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Esma Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1990] 69 Comp. Cas. 372. In para 17 of the decision, after referring to Order 14, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is observed as follows (at page 385) : "After the amendment in this provision in 1976, it becomes clear that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
