TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain applications under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 despite an notification conferring jurisdiction on the District Court under the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
Analysis: Jurisdiction under section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956 vested in the High Court having territorial connection with the company's registered office, subject to any empowerment of a District Court by notification under sub-section (2). The relied-upon 1925 notification, issued under section 3 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, was examined in light of section 645 of the Companies Act, 1956, which preserves only such prior orders, rules, and other instruments as could have been made under the new Act and were capable of continuing in force at its commencement. Since an order of that kind could thereafter be made only by the Central Government under the 1956 Act, the earlier local notification could not be treated as continuing. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act was held inapplicable to the extent it conflicted with the special saving provision in section 645.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection to jurisdiction was rejected and the High Court held that it alone had jurisdiction to entertain the applications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
