TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1069
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchased by the plaintiff. The averment of the plaintiff was that he had purchased 200 equity shares of defendant No. 1 from defendant No. 2 and 100 equity shares of defendant No. 1 from defendant No. 3. The distinctive numbers of the said shares have been mentioned in the plaint. The dates of the bill by which these purchases were made have also been detailed. The further contention of the plaintiff was that on June 19, 1992, the said shares along with his other shares of other companies were stolen from his car. FIR No. 377 of 1992 under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered. However, the case could not be solved. On June 24, 1992, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the company informing him about the loss of the shares ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t perspective while deciding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit." 6. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that there is a distinction between a rectification and a title to the shares ; in the instant case by way of declaration the plaintiff had sought a declaration that he had granted title to the said shares which were not yet transferred in his name. Reliance has been placed upon (Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Modern Plastic Containers (P.) Ltd. [1998] 17 SCL 463 (SC)), who support this submission. It is pointed out that the instant case is a case which would not be covered by a "rectification" ; the jurisdiction of the civil court would not be barred. 7. The averments as deciphered fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... something else. So the field or peripheral jurisdiction of the court under it would be what comes under rectification, not projected claims under the garb of rectification. So far as exercising power for rectification within its field there could be no doubt that the court as referred under section 155 read with section 2(11) and section 10, it is the company court alone which has exclusive jurisdiction. Similarly, under section 446 the `court' refers to the company judge which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide matters what is covered under it by itself. But this does not mean by interpreting such `court' having exclusive jurisdiction to include within it what is not covered under it, merely because it is cloaked under the nomenclature ....