Statutory member inspection rights may be enforced by mandatory relief even without an express copy-delivery provision.

A company's statutory duty to maintain members' records and a member's corresponding right to inspect and obtain copies are enforceable even where the Act does not expressly provide that precise remedy. Although the Companies Act, 1913 expressly mentioned a penalty for refusal and power to compel inspection, the Court treated the omission of an express order for delivery of a copy as non-exclusionary. Where a statute creates a right and imposes a corresponding obligation, the court vested with jurisdiction under that statute may grant appropriate mandatory relief so the right is effective. The District Judge therefore had jurisdiction to direct supply of the register copy.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Court empowered under section 3 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 has jurisdiction to compel a company to furnish a member with a copy of the register of members, and more broadly to enforce compliance with mandatory obligations under the Act in the absence of an express enforcement provision.

Analysis: Sections 31 and 32 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 impose mandatory duties on companies to maintain and prepare members' records, while section 36 gives members a statutory right of inspection and to obtain copies on payment. Although section 36(3) expressly provides a penalty for refusal and authorises the Court to compel immediate inspection, it does not in terms mention an order for delivery of a copy. The Court held that this omission does not exclude jurisdiction. Where the Act creates a right and requires performance of a statutory obligation, the Court empowered under section 3 has jurisdiction to enforce that obligation and to grant appropriate relief, including mandatory injunction, so that the statutory right is not left without a remedy.

Conclusion: The District Judge had jurisdiction to direct the company to supply the copy of the register of members, and the revision challenging that order failed.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that courts invested with jurisdiction under the Companies Act may enforce statutory duties and grant coercive relief to secure compliance with members' rights, even when the Act does not expressly prescribe that precise mode of enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a right and imposes a corresponding duty, the court having jurisdiction under that statute may, in the absence of an express contrary bar, enforce compliance by appropriate mandatory relief so that the statutory right is made effective.

---