Company court jurisdiction is limited to statutory conferrals; alleged breach of annual general meeting rules alone does not create a remedy.

The High Court's company jurisdiction is confined to matters specifically conferred by the Companies Act, 1956 and is not a general or plenary power. Section 166(2) regulates the timing and place of an annual general meeting, but it does not create any forum or remedy for enforcement. Reading sections 10 and 2(11) together, and treating Rule 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 as illustrative only, the Court found no statutory basis to entertain the complaint. It therefore held that alleged breach of section 166(2) did not by itself enlarge jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and grant relief for the alleged breach of section 166(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 in the absence of any specific statutory provision conferring such jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 166(2) regulates the place and time of an annual general meeting, but it does not itself create any forum or remedy for enforcement. The Court read section 10 and section 2(11) of the Companies Act, 1956 to hold that jurisdiction under the Act is not a general or plenary power of the High Court; it is confined to matters specifically conferred by the statute. Rule 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was treated as illustrative of the specific kinds of company matters within the High Court's competence. Since no provision was pointed out conferring jurisdiction on the High Court to decide the present complaint, and the breach, if any, would not by itself enlarge the company court's jurisdiction, the matter was held to fall outside the High Court's special jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to pass orders on the alleged breach of section 166(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 in these proceedings.

---