TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a petition styled as one under sections 81 and 10 of the Companies Act, 1956 was in substance a petition alleging oppression and mismanagement under sections 397 and 398, and whether such petition was maintainable before the High Court after the jurisdiction over those matters stood transferred to the Company Law Board.
Analysis: The averments in the petition alleged fraud, mala fides, illegality and oppressive conduct. Those allegations were not consistent with a mere grievance about right issue procedure under section 81, but disclosed the true character of a petition seeking reliefs available under sections 397 and 398. The mere label placed on the petition did not alter its substance. The Court held that the controlling test is the real nature of the controversy as disclosed by the pleadings, not the form in which the petition is drafted. Since jurisdiction over matters under sections 397 and 398 had been transferred to the Company Law Board, the High Court could not entertain such a petition.
Conclusion: The petition was held to be not maintainable before the High Court and was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The decision rests on the principle that the real substance of the pleadings governs jurisdiction, and a petition involving oppression and mismanagement cannot be maintained in the High Court merely by couching it as a matter under section 81.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the substance of the pleadings discloses a claim for oppression and mismanagement, the petition must be treated according to its true character and presented before the forum having jurisdiction over such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
