Statutory Inspection Rights: delivery of company register copies can be compelled despite no express copy-order in the statute.

The note addresses whether courts empowered under the Companies Act may compel delivery of a copy of the register of members where the statute expressly authorises inspection and prescribes penalties but is silent on an express copy-order. It explains that the Act creates a statutory inspection and copy right for members and that courts vested with jurisdiction under the Act possess inherent or mandamus-type powers to enforce mandatory statutory obligations, including ordering delivery of a copy, so as to give effect to the statutory right; the District Judge's exercise of such power is sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court empowered under the Companies Act has jurisdiction to order a company to furnish a copy of its register of members to a member (shareholder) notwithstanding that the specific penalty provision of the section mentions only fines and expressly authorises the Court to compel inspection.

Analysis: The Companies Act (Sections 31, 32 and Section 36(1)-(3)) creates a statutory right for a member to inspect the register and to obtain a copy on payment of copying charges; Section 3 confers jurisdiction on specified Courts to deal with matters under the Act. Although Clause (3) of Section 36 prescribes penalties and expressly authorises the Court to compel immediate inspection, the absence of an express provision directing that the Court may order delivery of a copy does not imply that the Court lacks power to enforce mandatory statutory obligations. Where a statute confers rights and prescribes penalties but is silent as to the method of enforcement, the Courts vested with jurisdiction under the statute possess inherent jurisdiction to enforce compliance, including by issuing mandatory relief. English authority (Davies v. Gas Light & Coke Co.) supports that a shareholder's statutory right to a copy may be enforced by mandatory or mandamus-type relief. The District Judge, being the Court empowered under Section 3 and applicable rules for company proceedings, was the competent forum to entertain a petition and to grant appropriate mandatory relief to secure the statutory right to a copy of the register.

Conclusion: The District Judge had jurisdiction under the Companies Act to order the company to furnish a copy of the register of members; the revision application by the company is dismissed and the District Judge's order is upheld in favour of the shareholder (respondent).

---