2008 (8) TMI 954

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Companies Act, 1956 by the trial R.F. A. No.444/06 Page 1 Court. In a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, plaintiff/appellant had sought a declaration that fifty four shares of respondent no.2 transferred by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, vide share transfer deed dated 20th November, 1977 was a forged and fabricated transaction. Appellant had also sought injunction against respondent no.2 company to restrain it from further transferring the aforesaid shares. 2. The stand taken by the appellant/plaintiff before the trial Court was that the question of share transfer deed dated 20th November 1977 being forged and fabricated document cannot be decided without evidence and so ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt on this aspect rendered in the case of M/s. Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd V. M/s Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3153) has been relied upon by the trial Court. So far, it is so good for the appellant. However, in the later part of the impugned order, the trial Court takes a „U‟ turn by being unduly influenced by order dated 12th April, 2005 of the Company Law Board vide which, respondent/defendant no.2 was directed to release the bonus shares to respondent/defendant no.1 in respect of fifty four equity shares in question. It has been observed by the trial Court in the impugned order that it cannot sit as an appellate Court over the R.F. A. No.444/06 Page 3 aforesaid order dated 12th April ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....within its field there could be no doubt the Court as referred under S.155 read with S.2(1) and S.10, it is the Company Court alone which has exclusive jurisdiction. Similarly, under S.146 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 rectification does not mean Court cannot see the substance after removing the cloak." 6. The remedy provided under Section 155 (now Section 111) of the Companies Act, 1956 is summary in nature. What remains to be seen is....