TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under section 84(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, being Company Application No. 101 of 2005 before the learned Company Judge, praying therein that the first respondent-company, namely, Godfrey Philips India Ltd., be directed to forthwith issue duplicate share certificates for 8,350 equity shares held by the applicant-appellant. In the said Company Application, K.K. Modi (the second respondent) made an application, directing the applicant ( appellant herein) to implead him as party respondent in the company application. We are informed that vide order dated 20-1-2006, the application made by Mr. K.K. Modi for his impleadment, was made absolute. 3. The learned Company Judge heard the parties and by the order dated 6th of July, 2006, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court held that to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court as defined in section 2(11) read with section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, the matter should be such as is provided by the Act to be adjudicated by the Court . In respect of the matters regarding which the Act does not provide for adjudication by the court, the adjudi- cating authority cannot mean the court as defined by section 2(11). The Calcutta High Court further held that it is only where the Act provides for adjudication by the court , that the court would mean the court as defined in section 2(11). It was further held that the definition clause cannot be given the interpretation that whenever there is a dispute relating to a company, it is the Company Court a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 of the Companies Act by the Central Government. 12. Mr. S.H. Doctor also relied upon the brief order of the Supreme Court in the case of Shripal Jain v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 590, where, with relation to the application under section 84(4), it was held that for issuance of duplicate certificate on account of loss of original ones, the proper forum to grant such relief under section 84(4) is not the civil court but the Registrar of Companies. 13. In our considered view, section 10 of the Act of 1956 only determines the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The said provision cannot be construed to mean that the High Court has jurisdiction with respect to all matters relating to a company. Wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not seem to us to be expositing the legal proposition that all issues and all questions under the Act of 1956 can be adjudicated and determined by the Company Court irrespective of whether such special provision has been made under the Act of 1956 or not. 15. In the case of Shripal Jain ( supra ), the Apex Court observed thus: "2. The share certificates purchased by the appellant in respect of M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., were stolen. The appellant approached the Registrar, respondent No. 2 in the appeal herein, for issue of duplicate certificates. The Registrar directed the appellant to have a direction in this respect from the civil court. The civil court rejected the application of the appellant. The High Court dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
