https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100688 The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956, due to a notification conferring jurisdiction on District Courts. However, the court had the authority to entertain petitions under section 209 of the Act not covered by the notification. The court determined that the statutory right of inspection under section 209(4) was enforceable, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to inspect relevant documents within a week. The petition was partially allowed, dismissing the plea under section 163 but granting relief under section 209(4), emphasizing the enforceability of the statutory right of inspection. en-us Wed, 20 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:44:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100688 The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956, due to a notification conferring jurisdiction on District Courts. However, the court had the authority to entertain petitions under section 209 of the Act not covered by the notification. The court determined that the statutory right of inspection under section 209(4) was enforceable, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to inspect relevant documents within a week. The petition was partially allowed, dismissing the plea under section 163 but granting relief under section 209(4), emphasizing the enforceability of the statutory right of inspection. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 20 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100688