https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277735 Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as the successor to section 155, and the civil court's jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was held to be concurrent with the company forum in disputes over preference shares and rectification of the register. Where the controversy turns on highly disputed questions of fact, the Civil Court is the proper forum to adjudicate the matter rather than excluding jurisdiction in favour of the company law mechanism. The trial court's view that the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court was therefore found erroneous, and civil jurisdiction was affirmed. en-us Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:19:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277735 Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as the successor to section 155, and the civil court's jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was held to be concurrent with the company forum in disputes over preference shares and rectification of the register. Where the controversy turns on highly disputed questions of fact, the Civil Court is the proper forum to adjudicate the matter rather than excluding jurisdiction in favour of the company law mechanism. The trial court's view that the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court was therefore found erroneous, and civil jurisdiction was affirmed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277735