https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96944 Company Court jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because a dispute concerns company records or office-related claims; the Act must create the right and leave enforcement without an express remedy. The Court held that Sections 3, 82 and 87 of the Indian Companies Act and Rule 9 did not confer a specific substantive right to maintain the petition as framed. It declined to extend inherent company jurisdiction to compel delivery of records or restrain civil proceedings where the grievance was essentially wrongful deprivation of office and possession, for which ordinary civil remedies were available. The Court also rejected the claim that company courts have universal exclusive jurisdiction over all company disputes. The application was held not maintainable. en-us Wed, 07 Aug 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:04:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96944 Company Court jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because a dispute concerns company records or office-related claims; the Act must create the right and leave enforcement without an express remedy. The Court held that Sections 3, 82 and 87 of the Indian Companies Act and Rule 9 did not confer a specific substantive right to maintain the petition as framed. It declined to extend inherent company jurisdiction to compel delivery of records or restrain civil proceedings where the grievance was essentially wrongful deprivation of office and possession, for which ordinary civil remedies were available. The Court also rejected the claim that company courts have universal exclusive jurisdiction over all company disputes. The application was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 07 Aug 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96944