Civil court jurisdiction governs election disputes over directors unless clearly excluded; petition dismissed in favour of civil suit remedy.

Jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 CPC remains the rule, and exclusion must be express or arise by necessary implication. In a challenge to the election of directors, the absence of any express bar in the Companies Act meant the dispute was open to civil adjudication, and a declaration that the election is void was to be sought by civil suit rather than by petition before the Court. On that basis, the petition was held not maintainable before the Court and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the appropriate civil remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition challenging the election was maintainable before the Court, or whether the petitioner was required to seek relief by way of a civil suit.

Analysis: Jurisdiction of civil courts is the rule under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and exclusion of that jurisdiction must be express or arise by necessary implication. In the absence of any provision in the Companies Act expressly barring civil court jurisdiction in disputes regarding election of directors, such matters are open to civil adjudication. The Court followed the view that where a challenge is made to the election of directors and a declaration is sought that the election is void, the proper remedy lies in a civil suit unless jurisdiction is clearly taken away.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable before the Court and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue a civil suit.

---