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 the civil revision petition under Article 227 was maintainable against the Company Law Board's order under section 45-QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction when an appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 lay only to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the company's registered office was situated.
Analysis: The order challenged before the Court was appealable under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. The expression "the High Court" in section 10F was understood to mean the High Court having jurisdiction over the place where the company's registered office was situated. Since the registered office was at Bangalore, the appellate forum was the Karnataka High Court and not the Madras High Court. The Court also held that, even assuming concurrent supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, judicial discipline required refusal to exercise that jurisdiction where the subject matter was already before the appropriate High Court and conflicting decisions had to be avoided.
Conclusion: The revision petition was not maintainable before this Court and could not be entertained under Article 227.