1983 (6) TMI 134 - HC - Companies Law

Civil court has jurisdiction over Companies Act matters, complex issues should be tried in civil courts

The court upheld the civil court's jurisdiction to try the suit, emphasizing that section 155 of the Companies Act does not expressly or impliedly bar the ... Powers of Court to rectify register of members Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit.2. Whether the suit in the present form does not lie.3. Validity of the transfer deed according to company rules.4. Alleged compromise between the plaintiff and defendant.5. Proper valuation of the suit for court fee and jurisdiction purposes.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Try the Suit:The primary issue in the appeal was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit in light of sections 111 and 155 of the Companies Act. The appellant argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred, and the remedy should be sought under section 155 of the Companies Act, which provides a summary remedy. The respondent contended that the civil court's jurisdiction was not excluded as the remedy under section 155 was discretionary and summary in nature. The court concluded that the jurisdiction of the civil court was not expressly or impliedly barred for matters falling under section 155. The court emphasized that section 155 provides a summary remedy, and complex issues should be adjudicated by civil courts. Therefore, the civil court's jurisdiction was upheld.2. Whether the Suit in the Present Form Does Not Lie:The judgment did not delve deeply into this issue, as the primary focus was on the jurisdictional question. However, the court implicitly upheld the form of the suit by addressing the jurisdictional issue and proceeding with the substantive matters.3. Validity of the Transfer Deed According to Company Rules:The court did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment. The primary focus was on the jurisdictional question, and the validity of the transfer deed was not a central point of contention in the appeal.4. Alleged Compromise Between the Plaintiff and Defendant:Similar to the third issue, the court did not discuss the alleged compromise in detail. The judgment primarily addressed the jurisdictional question, leaving other issues to be resolved subsequently if necessary.5. Proper Valuation of the Suit for Court Fee and Jurisdiction Purposes:The court did not provide an in-depth analysis of this issue, as the main focus was on the jurisdictional question. The valuation of the suit for court fee and jurisdiction purposes was not a central point of contention in the appeal.Conclusion:The court held that the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred for matters falling within the purview of section 155 of the Companies Act. The judgment emphasized that section 155 provides a summary remedy, and complex issues should be adjudicated by civil courts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the civil court's jurisdiction to try the suit was upheld. The court did not make any order as to costs.