Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a petition before the Company Court was maintainable to declare that a director had not vacated office under section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956, and whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred.
Analysis: Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers jurisdiction on civil courts to try all civil suits of a civil nature unless barred expressly or by necessary implication. The Companies Act, 1956 does not expressly bar civil court jurisdiction in respect of every matter arising under the Act. The jurisdiction of the Company Court under sections 2(11) and 10 of the Companies Act, 1956 is limited to matters which the Act specifically entrusts to the Court. Section 283 merely states the circumstances in which a director's office becomes vacant; it does not provide a remedy for a declaration that the office has or has not been vacated. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Company Court is therefore confined to matters expressly assigned to it by the Act.
Conclusion: The petition seeking a declaration that the petitioner continued as director was not maintainable before the Company Court, and the dismissal was correct.
Ratio Decidendi: The Company Court has exclusive jurisdiction only over matters specifically conferred on it by the Companies Act, 1956, and in the absence of an express or necessarily implied statutory bar, civil court jurisdiction remains available for disputes not so entrusted.