https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460378 Civil court jurisdiction was held not to be barred by the Companies Act, 1956 because no express or necessary implication excluded ordinary suits challenging the validity of directors' appointments, so the dispute remained cognizable in civil court. Section 10A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 likewise did not oust jurisdiction, because sub-section (6) applies only to appointments, removals, reconstitutions, or elections made "under this section"; appointments made merely in conformity with section 10A(2), and not pursuant to sub-sections (3), (4), or (5), fell outside that bar. The statutory exclusion was confined to its precise language. en-us Fri, 09 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jan 2025 19:07:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460378 Civil court jurisdiction was held not to be barred by the Companies Act, 1956 because no express or necessary implication excluded ordinary suits challenging the validity of directors' appointments, so the dispute remained cognizable in civil court. Section 10A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 likewise did not oust jurisdiction, because sub-section (6) applies only to appointments, removals, reconstitutions, or elections made "under this section"; appointments made merely in conformity with section 10A(2), and not pursuant to sub-sections (3), (4), or (5), fell outside that bar. The statutory exclusion was confined to its precise language. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 09 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460378