https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101284 Civil court jurisdiction was held not to be excluded merely because the dispute concerned alleged disqualification of a company director under the Companies Act, 1956. The court construed sections 2(11) and 10 as identifying the competent court for matters under the Act, not as ousting ordinary civil jurisdiction in every company-related dispute. It applied the distinction between corporate rights and individual rights, and the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, to hold that a suit lies where an individual right is infringed or the challenged act is incapable of ratification by the majority. The alleged disqualification and challenge to continuance in office were treated as individual-right claims, so the civil suit was maintainable. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:41:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101284 Civil court jurisdiction was held not to be excluded merely because the dispute concerned alleged disqualification of a company director under the Companies Act, 1956. The court construed sections 2(11) and 10 as identifying the competent court for matters under the Act, not as ousting ordinary civil jurisdiction in every company-related dispute. It applied the distinction between corporate rights and individual rights, and the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, to hold that a suit lies where an individual right is infringed or the challenged act is incapable of ratification by the majority. The alleged disqualification and challenge to continuance in office were treated as individual-right claims, so the civil suit was maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101284