TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred in a suit concerning disputes relating to preference shares and rectification of the company's register, on the ground that such matters fell within the Company Law Board's jurisdiction under section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Analysis: Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as the successor to section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956. The jurisdiction under section 155 and the Civil Court's jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were held to be concurrent. It was further noted that where the controversy involves highly disputed questions of fact, the Civil Court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the dispute rather than the company forum. On that basis, the trial court's view that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court was held to be erroneous.
Conclusion: The Civil Court had jurisdiction to try and determine the disputes, and the order rejecting the suit was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: In matters relating to rectification of the register of members, the civil court's jurisdiction is concurrent with the company forum, and disputed questions of fact may be decided by the Civil Court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
TaxTMI 
