https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112214 Section 10 of the Companies Act was treated as limited to matters specifically assigned under that Act, such as winding up and other company-law proceedings, and not as a bar to a civil suit for recovery of money by a company. In the absence of any express or implied statutory exclusion, civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure remained available, so the money decree was not void for want of jurisdiction. A jurisdictional objection that could and should have been raised before the trial court, however, could not be introduced for the first time at the execution stage under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. en-us Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:39:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112214 Section 10 of the Companies Act was treated as limited to matters specifically assigned under that Act, such as winding up and other company-law proceedings, and not as a bar to a civil suit for recovery of money by a company. In the absence of any express or implied statutory exclusion, civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure remained available, so the money decree was not void for want of jurisdiction. A jurisdictional objection that could and should have been raised before the trial court, however, could not be introduced for the first time at the execution stage under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112214