https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105849 The complaint over non-return of share certificates could not be pursued in the criminal court because the Delhi court had territorial jurisdiction on the facts disclosed, and the Bangalore court could not assume it. The statutory remedy under section 113(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, vested such default disputes in the CLB, so a direct complaint before a Magistrate was not maintainable. Where the company was under liquidation and a provisional liquidator had been appointed, proceedings could not continue without leave of the company court under section 446(1), and the absence of such leave barred the complaint. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:52:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105849 The complaint over non-return of share certificates could not be pursued in the criminal court because the Delhi court had territorial jurisdiction on the facts disclosed, and the Bangalore court could not assume it. The statutory remedy under section 113(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, vested such default disputes in the CLB, so a direct complaint before a Magistrate was not maintainable. Where the company was under liquidation and a provisional liquidator had been appointed, proceedings could not continue without leave of the company court under section 446(1), and the absence of such leave barred the complaint. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105849