Saving clause and concurrent company jurisdiction preserve High Court power despite delegated District Court forum

A saving clause preserved the notification empowering District Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Companies Act after the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 came into force. The article explains that such delegated jurisdiction survived because the adapted Companies Act corresponded to the prior law and the Rajasthan Government could stand in place of the Central Government for that purpose. It further states that conferral of jurisdiction on District Courts did not oust the High Court's original company jurisdiction, as exclusion of a superior court requires express words or necessary implication. Pending company matters could therefore continue in the High Court or be transferred to the District Court as appropriate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification empowering District Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Companies Act remained in force after the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 came into force. (ii) Whether conferment of jurisdiction on the District Courts under the Companies Act ousted the High Court's jurisdiction in company matters. (iii) Whether the High Court could proceed with the pending applications or transfer them to the District Court.

Issue (i): Whether the notification empowering District Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Companies Act remained in force after the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 came into force.

Analysis: The saving provision in section 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act preserved acts done and notifications issued under the corresponding previous law in force in Rajasthan. The adapted Companies Act was the corresponding law, and the power exercised by the Rajasthan Government under the adapted provision corresponded to the power contemplated by section 3 of the Indian Companies Act. The notification was also supported by the general adaptation clause, which substituted the Government of Rajasthan for the Central Government where necessary.

Conclusion: The notification remained valid and continued in force.

Issue (ii): Whether conferment of jurisdiction on the District Courts under the Companies Act ousted the High Court's jurisdiction in company matters.

Analysis: The scheme of section 3 treated the High Court as the court of original jurisdiction, while the proviso enabled the appropriate Government to empower a District Court to exercise that jurisdiction. The language used did not expressly exclude the High Court, and jurisdiction of superior courts is not taken away except by express words or necessary implication. The provision saving proceedings taken in the wrong court also indicated that the High Court was not deprived of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court's jurisdiction was not ousted, though matters within the District Court's competence should ordinarily be entertained there.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court could proceed with the pending applications or transfer them to the District Court.

Analysis: Since the High Court retained jurisdiction, it could proceed with the applications under section 3(3). Even on the footing that the District Court was the appropriate forum, the High Court could transfer the matters. Section 17 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance also enabled transfer to the High Court from subordinate courts, supporting flexible disposal in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The High Court could proceed with the applications and, if necessary, transfer any case to the District Court.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the District Court's delegated jurisdiction was validly preserved, the High Court was not divested of jurisdiction, and the pending company matters could be continued in the High Court or transferred as appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated jurisdiction under an earlier company law survives by virtue of the saving clause in the successor legislation, and conferment of jurisdiction on a District Court does not oust the High Court unless exclusion is express or necessarily implied; proceedings are also saved where initiated in a court not divested of inherent jurisdiction.

---