https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98549 Section 9 CPC preserves civil court jurisdiction in all civil matters unless expressly or impliedly barred, and the Companies Act, 1956 did not exclude that jurisdiction for a suit seeking a declaration that a plaintiff could continue as director with consequential injunctions. Sections 2(11)(a), 10 and 10(2) merely allocate certain company matters to the High Court or district courts; they do not, by themselves, bar ordinary civil suits. The reliefs claimed were different from proceedings for regulation of company affairs under sections 398 and 402(a), and the statutory remedy invoked did not fully cover the plaint reliefs. The suit was therefore maintainable in civil court, and the revisional challenge failed. en-us Mon, 16 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:12:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98549 Section 9 CPC preserves civil court jurisdiction in all civil matters unless expressly or impliedly barred, and the Companies Act, 1956 did not exclude that jurisdiction for a suit seeking a declaration that a plaintiff could continue as director with consequential injunctions. Sections 2(11)(a), 10 and 10(2) merely allocate certain company matters to the High Court or district courts; they do not, by themselves, bar ordinary civil suits. The reliefs claimed were different from proceedings for regulation of company affairs under sections 398 and 402(a), and the statutory remedy invoked did not fully cover the plaint reliefs. The suit was therefore maintainable in civil court, and the revisional challenge failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98549