TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Lodging No. 395 of 1992 had filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay, being Short Cause Suit No. 7688 of 1991 in which they have prayed that the first defendant in that suit had ceased to be Director of Poddar Tyres Limited, the third defendant therein, with effect from the 30th September, 1991. In both these suits each of the prayers dealing with the above declarations had been valued at ₹ 300/- on the ground that the prayers were incapable of monetary valuation and the plaintiffs paid a court fee of ₹ 30/- on that basis under section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. 4. In the above two suits the plaintiffs therein had taken out Notice of Motion for interim reliefs. In the affidavits in reply which were filed by the defendants in the City Civil Court in the Notices of Motion, a preliminary objection was taken to the Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to entertain and try the suits. In view of this objection the learned Judge of the City Civil Court framed a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction in both these proceedings. This was as follows: Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in view of the provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the suits had been valued by the plaintiffs for the purposes of Court Fees and jurisdiction at ₹ 300/- each under section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 as the reliefs were not capable of monetary valuation. Under section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1987 the value for the computation of Court Fees and jurisdiction is required to be the same. As the monetary jurisdiction of the High Court on the Original Side is above ₹ 50,000/- he was of the view that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the two suits. However, in view of the decision of the City Civil Court that the plaintiffs should present the plaints in both these suits to the High Court on the Original Side, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge in the Appeals against Orders, he placed the two plaints before the learned Chamber Judge for his consideration. The learned Chamber Judge (Srikrishna, J.) by a detailed speaking order has come to the conclusion that looking to the valuation of the two suits the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suits and the competent Court to try the suit is the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay. He has said that he is una ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred, in respect of Companies having their registered offices in the district. (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as it thinks fit, empower any District Court to exercise all or any of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act upon the Court, not being the jurisdiction conferred- (a) in respect of Companies generally, by sections 237, 391, 394, 395 and 397 to 407, both inclusive; (b) in respect of Companies with a paid-up share capital of not less than one lakh of rupees, by part VII (sections 425 to 560) and the provisions of this Act relating to the winding up of Companies. (3) For the purpose of jurisdiction to wind up Companies, the expression registered office means the place, which has longest been the registered office of the Company during the six months immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for winding up . When both these sections are read together it is apparent that whenever in the Companies Act the term ' the Court' is used, the Court which is referred to is the Court as set out in section 10. When under the Companies Act a section re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplated under the Companies Act under any specific provision that the Court which is referred to in that section would be the special Court, namely the High Court or the Notified District Court. In all other cases ordinarily Civil Courts would continue to have jurisdiction. This has been so held by a learned Single Judge of our High Court in the case of Rao Saheb Manilal Gangaram Sindore v. Messrs Western India Theatres Ltd., reported in LXIV Bom.L.R. at page 532. 14. In the case before the learned Judge a suit was filed by the plaintiffs for rectification of the registrar of members alleging that the Company had wrongfully refused to register their names in respect of certain shares which they had submitted to the Company with duly completed transfer forms. The suit was, therefore, governed by section 155 of the Companies Act. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the remedy under section 155 of the Companies Act was by an application which was to be made by way of a petition before the Company Judge and the suit was not cognizable by the High Court. The Court said that even for a relief contemplated by section 155 of the Companies Act, a suit would be the prima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Company Court, either expressly or by necessary implication, all other disputes pertaining to a Company must be resolved through the forum of the Civil Courts. It was held that section 10 of the Companies Act only enumerates or specifies the courts having jurisdiction under the Companies Act where such jurisdiction is conferred on such a Court by the other provisions of the Companies Act. The Kerela High Court relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of Joseph v. Jos, reported in (1964) 34 Company Cases 931 in this connection. 16. A similar view has been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Panipat Woollen and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Kaushik, reported in (1969) 39 Company Cases 249. This case deals with a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff continued to be a director of the Company in question. The sole question before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was as to whether the case was triable by a Civil Court. The Court considered the provisions of section 2(11) and section 10 of the Companies Act and Notification issued under section 10(2). The Court said that these provisions and the Notification only point out that the matters relating to a Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Civil Court is ousted. The very fact that section 2(11) is part of the definition clause under the Companies Act under which a Court is defined to mean the Court as prescribed under section 10, clearly shows that whenever the term 'the Court' is used in any section of the Companies Act, the term 'Court' will have to be interpreted with reference to section 10. These sections will have no application where any general civil suit is filed. The definition clause is attracted only when resort is had to a proceeding under the Companies Act under a section which prescribes resort to a Court. Under the Companies Act powers are conferred not only on Courts but also on other authorities like the Company Law Board, the Central Government and the Registrar. Where a power is vested by the Act in a Court, that Court has to be ascertained with reference to section 10. Beyond so specifying the Court competent to deal with such a matter, section 10 cannot be construed as investing the Company Court with jurisdiction over every matter which may arise in respect of a Company or as divesting Civil Courts of their jurisdiction. 22. In the present case although the irregularities in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay are required to be filed in the Bombay City Civil Court. One of these exceptions is under sub-section (c). This deals with suits or proceedings which are cognizable by the High Court under any special law other than the Letters Patent. Mr. Kapadia submits that the present suits have to be entertained by the High Court under the Companies Act which is a special law and hence they fall within section 3(c) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948. This submission has no merit. As pointed out by us earlier, the present suits are not required to be filed in the High Court under section 10 of the Companies Act. Section 10 of the Companies Act has no application to the suits which are before us. We therefore agree with the view taken by the learned Chamber Judge, that the two suits have to be tried by a Civil Court. It is not in dispute that looking to the valuation of the prayers in the suits, it is the Bombay City Civil Court which will have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suits. The plaints are accordingly returned under Order VII, Rule 10 read with Rule 283 of the High Court Rules on the Original Side, for presentation to the proper Court. 26. We have no doubt that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
