Jurisdictional exclusion by notification upheld for company matters; filing at Allahabad remained maintainable despite a technical objection.

A Chief Justice's notification issued under paragraph 14 of the Amalgamation Order was treated as validly excluding company matters from the Lucknow Bench and requiring such petitions to be filed and heard at Allahabad. The expression excluding the "exercise of jurisdiction and power" was held broad enough to cover both institution and hearing of company cases. The earlier Nasiruddin ruling was distinguished as dealing with territorial demarcation and not undermining the notification, which had long been acted upon. Even on a narrower reading, filing at Allahabad was treated as a technical defect causing no prejudice or failure of justice, so the maintainability objection failed and the petition was held maintainable at Allahabad.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification of 15 July 1949 validly excluded company matters from the Lucknow Bench and required such petitions to be filed and heard at Allahabad, and whether the company petition was therefore maintainable at Allahabad.

Analysis: Paragraph 14 of the Amalgamation Order empowered the Chief Justice to regulate where cases arising in Oudh areas would be heard at Allahabad, and the notification of 15 July 1949 excluded the Lucknow Bench from exercising jurisdiction in company matters under the specified enactments. The expression used in the notification, namely exclusion of the "exercise of jurisdiction and power," was held wide enough to cover institution as well as hearing of company cases. The Court further held that the earlier decision in Nasiruddin concerned territorial demarcation and did not invalidate the 15 July 1949 notification, which had long been acted upon for company matters. Even on the appellant's narrower reading, filing at Allahabad was treated as at most a technical defect, since no prejudice or failure of justice was shown and the matter was already ripe for hearing.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed, the petition at Allahabad was held maintainable, and the appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The High Court upheld the competence of Allahabad to entertain the company petition and declined to interfere with the order overruling the jurisdictional objection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Chief Justice's notification validly excludes a class of cases from one Bench's jurisdiction and the parties suffer no prejudice or failure of justice, a filing at the other competent Bench does not fail for want of maintainability on a merely technical objection.

---