1999 (12) TMI 819

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and shareholders of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 company is a public limited company. The respondent Nos. 2 to 12 are looking after the management and administration of the company. Respondent Nos. 13, 14 and 17 claim to be the creditors of the company. The respondent No. 15 is a Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No. 16 is Deputy Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The petitioners had filed Company Petition No. 298 of 1998 for winding up of the respondent-company under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). It is stated that the petitioners have filed the petition before the District Court at Kolhapur in bona fide belief that such a petition can be filed in the District Court and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the District Court in which the petition is pending. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied upon a Single Judge decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Alleppey Chit Fund (P.) Ltd., In re [1961] 31 Comp. Cas. 641 . 3. In my view, the opinion expressed by the Kerala High Court with regard to the interpretation of section 437 is the correct view. The power for conferring the jurisdiction on District Courts has been specifically conferred, under section 10(2), on the Central Government. If the intention had been otherwise, it would have specifically so provided. In fact, the language of section 437 will not permit the High Court to confer jurisdiction on a District Court, wherein no notification by the Govern....