https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97526 A writ petition under Article 226 was held inappropriate where the petitioner had already invoked a statutory revisional remedy concerning the same complaints, so parallel use of extraordinary jurisdiction was rejected. The document also states that the Registrar was competent to file complaints under the Companies Act, 1913, because nothing in that Act expressly or by necessary implication barred a direct complaint; the relevant provisions were enabling, not prohibitive. The Magistrate could validly take cognizance on the complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a prior opportunity to the petitioner before filing the complaint did not vitiate jurisdiction or make the proceedings unlawful. en-us Thu, 25 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:28:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97526 A writ petition under Article 226 was held inappropriate where the petitioner had already invoked a statutory revisional remedy concerning the same complaints, so parallel use of extraordinary jurisdiction was rejected. The document also states that the Registrar was competent to file complaints under the Companies Act, 1913, because nothing in that Act expressly or by necessary implication barred a direct complaint; the relevant provisions were enabling, not prohibitive. The Magistrate could validly take cognizance on the complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a prior opportunity to the petitioner before filing the complaint did not vitiate jurisdiction or make the proceedings unlawful. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 25 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97526