<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (10) TMI 430 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108038</link>
    <description>Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956 confers jurisdiction on the company court only for matters specifically assigned by the Act and does not create a general jurisdiction over all company-related disputes. A challenge to forfeiture of shares under a company&#039;s articles was therefore outside the company court&#039;s maintainable jurisdiction. In the absence of an express statutory remedy and where civil jurisdiction is not excluded by necessary implication, the ordinary civil court remedy under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 remains available. Earlier decisions limiting section 10 to specified matters were followed, and authorities based on inapplicable or deleted provisions were distinguished.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:34:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 430 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108038</link>
      <description>Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956 confers jurisdiction on the company court only for matters specifically assigned by the Act and does not create a general jurisdiction over all company-related disputes. A challenge to forfeiture of shares under a company&#039;s articles was therefore outside the company court&#039;s maintainable jurisdiction. In the absence of an express statutory remedy and where civil jurisdiction is not excluded by necessary implication, the ordinary civil court remedy under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 remains available. Earlier decisions limiting section 10 to specified matters were followed, and authorities based on inapplicable or deleted provisions were distinguished.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>