Statutory inspection and copying rights under the Companies Act depend on the text: jurisdiction followed the Act's definition and copying was limited by express permission.

The Companies Act definition of "the Court" governed enforcement provisions for inspection and access to company documents, so the High Court with jurisdiction under the Act could entertain the application. A disputed membership claim was not summarily decided in these proceedings because forfeiture, removal from the register, and lien issues were already pending in a suit. Treating the applicant as an outsider for the time being, the Court noted that the Act conferred inspection rights in some cases, copying rights in some cases on payment of fees, and no right to certified copies in others. Inspection was ordered, and copying was allowed only to the extent expressly authorised by the statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the true construction of the Companies Act, the expression "the Court" in the relevant provisions empowering enforcement of inspection and copy rights meant the High Court having jurisdiction under the Act, so that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application; (ii) Whether the applicant, whose membership was disputed, was entitled to copies and inspection of the several company documents sought in the summons, either as a member or as an outsider.

Issue (i): Whether, on the true construction of the Companies Act, the expression "the Court" in the relevant provisions empowering enforcement of inspection and copy rights meant the High Court having jurisdiction under the Act, so that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Analysis: The Act defined "the Court" as the Court having jurisdiction under the Act, and that definition had to be applied to the sections conferring power to compel compliance unless the subject or context repelled it. The penal provisions created offences but did not confer criminal jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing compliance; the criminal court's role in trying offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure did not exhaust the meaning of "the Court" for enforcement provisions. Where the Act intended the same court to try the offence and make the enforcement order, it said so expressly. No repugnancy was shown in reading the enforcement provisions as referring to the High Court having jurisdiction under the Act.

Conclusion: The expression "the Court" meant the High Court having jurisdiction under the Act, and this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant, whose membership was disputed, was entitled to copies and inspection of the several company documents sought in the summons, either as a member or as an outsider.

Analysis: The request for certified copies was not maintainable because the Act did not confer a right to certified copies. As to the items claimed as a member, the Court declined to pronounce upon the disputed forfeiture, removal from the register, and alleged lien, since those questions were already in issue in a pending suit and involved fact-sensitive matters better decided there. Treating the applicant as an outsider for the time being, the Court held that some documents were open only to inspection, some allowed inspection and copying on payment of fees, and some did not permit copies at all. The applicant was therefore not entitled to copies of the documents falling under the sections that conferred only inspection rights or no copying right, but was entitled to copies of the documents for which the Act expressly allowed an outsider to obtain copies on payment of the requisite fee. Inspection of the relevant documents was ordered in any event, and the fact that the applicant had a disputed or adverse motive was irrelevant where the statutory right existed.

Conclusion: The applicant was refused copies of the documents for which the Act did not allow copying as an outsider, but was granted copies where the Act so permitted, and was also granted inspection of the relevant documents.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only in part: the Court upheld its jurisdiction, declined to decide the disputed membership controversy, and granted the applicant inspection and limited copying rights only to the extent allowed by the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute defines "the Court" for enforcement provisions, that definition governs unless the context repels it, and a disputed membership claim will not be summarily resolved in proceedings for statutory inspection rights when the controversy is already the subject of a pending suit.

---