TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (8) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant: Sushil Biswas, Radhapa Banerji and Satyajit Banerji, Advs. For the Respondent: Anindya Mitra and S.C. Ukil, Advs. ORDER 1. This is an application asking for admission of an appeal preferred from the order of Roy Chowdhury, J. refusing to stay proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 being Company petition No. 169 of 1981, Company Application No, 93 of 1981. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xercise the powers which are exercisable by the Company Court under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 it appears to us that in this case the causes of action in essence, in two matters, are different. There is a case of oppression against the minorities and mismanagement by the Guhas. Looked at from that point of view it appears to us that in this case it would be incorrect to say th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecause it possessed jurisdiction to do so under Section 9 of the C. P. C. and not because of anything contained in the Companies Act. The Division Bench was further of the view that it would not be correct to say that the party concerned should first seek his remedy from the Company Court under Sections 155, 397 and 398 of the Act and then he could file a suit only if the Company Court refused to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fferent. Quite apart from any of these theoretical questions we have examined the reliefs that have been asked for in the 397 application in the instant case. The main relief seems to be on the ground of oppression and framing of a scheme and appointment of directors which is distinctly different from the relief asked for in the suit restraining some directors nominated by the Government from func....