Company Court jurisdiction extends to disputes over statutory cessation of directorship and forfeiture of shares under the Companies Act.

Jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956 extends to the Company Court for disputes relating to a company unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication. The Act's definition of "Court" in section 2(11), read with section 10, places such matters before the High Court except where jurisdiction is assigned to a District Court. A statutory disqualification and automatic vacation of office under section 283(1)(f) may arise on non-payment of call money, but the existence of the jurisdictional facts triggering that consequence remains justiciable. A director disputing cessation of office is therefore not left without a remedy, and the Company Court may entertain an application challenging the alleged cessation and forfeiture of shares.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application by a director challenging a notice declaring cessation of office and forfeiture of shares is maintainable before the Company Court and whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain it.

Analysis: The definition of "Court" in section 2(11) of the Companies Act, 1956 must be read with section 10, which vests jurisdiction in the High Court except where the Act confers it on a District Court. The phrase "relating to a company" is wide, and the jurisdiction under the Act is not limited to the exclusion of every other forum unless exclusion is express or by necessary implication. Section 283(1)(f) creates a statutory disqualification and automatic vacation of office on non-payment of call money, but whether the jurisdictional facts attracting that consequence occurred is itself a justiciable question. A director who disputes cessation of office cannot be left without a remedy merely because the disqualification operates by statute. The Company Court, being the forum created under the Act to determine matters relating to the company, can entertain such an application.

Conclusion: The Company Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application challenging the alleged cessation of directorship under section 283(1)(f), and the objection to maintainability was rejected.

---