Writ petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Company registration in Shillong not sufficient for jurisdiction. Seek redressal elsewhere.

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner's argument that the company being registered in Shillong conferred jurisdiction was rejected. The court held that the cause of action did not arise within the Gauhati High Court's jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to seek redressal in the appropriate court, and the interim order was vacated without costs being awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the proceedings under Company Petition No. 45/2003.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Proceedings under Company Petition No. 45/2003:
The petitioner, a shareholder of a private limited company registered in Shillong, challenged the legality of proceedings under Company Petition No. 45/2003 pending before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, Delhi. The petitioner claimed that his shares were canceled without his consent and without following due legal procedures. He argued that he was not made a party to the proceedings, despite being a necessary party, and was unaware of the case until he received a letter from the respondent-company.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court:
The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Article 226(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that since the company is registered in Shillong, the Gauhati High Court has jurisdiction. However, the respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the Company Law Board is located in Delhi, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court.

Article 226(1) limits the High Court's jurisdiction to the territories it exercises jurisdiction over, and the authority or person must be within those territories. Article 226(2) allows the High Court to issue directions if the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, which held that the cause of action must be material, integral, or essential to the dispute.

The petitioner argued that the registered office of the company being in Shillong should confer jurisdiction. However, the court found that the location of the registered office is not a material or integral part of the cause of action. The subject matter of the company petition was the legality of share allotments, not the location of the company's registered office.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226:
The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under sections 10-F and 405 of the Companies Act, 1956, and had not exhausted these remedies. They relied on several Supreme Court decisions to support their claim that the writ petition should be dismissed for lack of maintainability.

The court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court. The mere fact that the company is registered in Shillong does not constitute a cause of action. The court held that the writ petition is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of non-maintainability due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner was advised to approach the competent and jurisdictional court to address his grievances. The interim order passed earlier was vacated, and no order as to costs was made.

---