Civil court jurisdiction in company money suits survives absent statutory bar, and belated jurisdiction objections cannot defeat execution.

Section 10 of the Companies Act was treated as limited to matters specifically assigned under that Act, such as winding up and other company-law proceedings, and not as a bar to a civil suit for recovery of money by a company. In the absence of any express or implied statutory exclusion, civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure remained available, so the money decree was not void for want of jurisdiction. A jurisdictional objection that could and should have been raised before the trial court, however, could not be introduced for the first time at the execution stage under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 10 of the Companies Act barred a civil court from entertaining a suit for recovery of money filed by a company and rendered the decree non est; (ii) whether the objection to the trial court's jurisdiction could be raised for the first time at the execution stage in view of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether Section 10 of the Companies Act barred a civil court from entertaining a suit for recovery of money filed by a company and rendered the decree non est.

Analysis: Section 10 of the Companies Act was held to govern only those matters which are assigned to the court under that Act, such as winding up and other company-law proceedings. The Act does not provide any special mechanism for recovery of money lent by or borrowed from a company. In the absence of an express or implied bar, Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preserves the jurisdiction of the civil court to try a money recovery suit filed by a company.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for recovery of money, and the decree was not without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection to the trial court's jurisdiction could be raised for the first time at the execution stage in view of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: An objection relating to the competence of the court, including jurisdictional objections that could and should have been raised at the proper stage, must be taken at the earliest opportunity before issues are settled. Since the petitioner did not raise the objection in the trial court, the challenge could not be entertained in execution proceedings.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction objection was barred at the execution stage.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the civil court's jurisdiction to pass the money decree was upheld and the belated objection to jurisdiction was not entertainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express or implied statutory bar, civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 continues for a company's money recovery suit, and a jurisdictional objection not raised at the earliest stage cannot be allowed to defeat execution later under Section 21 of that Code.

---