Company Court jurisdiction over share forfeiture refused where the Companies Act provided no special forum and civil remedy remained available.

Jurisdiction to challenge forfeiture of shares lay in ordinary civil proceedings because no provision of the Companies Act conferred Company Court jurisdiction over the relief sought. The power to forfeit shares arose from the articles of association, and the statutory scheme on rectification of the register did not apply on the facts. Where a statute creates a right but does not provide a special forum or enforcement mode, ordinary civil jurisdiction remains available. Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 could not be used to expand jurisdiction by invoking inherent powers. The company petition was therefore not maintainable before the Company Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company petition challenging forfeiture of shares was maintainable before the Company Court, or whether the petitioners had to pursue the ordinary civil remedy.

Analysis: The only question decided was jurisdictional. The relief sought did not fall under any specific provision of the Companies Act conferring jurisdiction on the Company Court. The power to forfeit shares arose from the articles of association, and the statutory provisions concerning rectification of the register did not apply on the facts. Where a statute creates a right but does not prescribe a special forum or special mode of enforcement, the ordinary civil jurisdiction remains available. Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 could not be invoked to bypass that ordinary remedy, because inherent powers cannot be used to create jurisdiction where none is conferred by the Act.

Conclusion: The company petition was not maintainable before the Company Court and was liable to be dismissed.

---