TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 4.4.2005 rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that disputes which were subject matter of the suit under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had to be decided by the Company Law Board by virtue of Section 111 of the Act. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the subject suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on the pleading that the shareholding of defendant Nos.3 and 6 to 9 of the defendant No. 1 was of Redeemable Preference Shares issued in the year 1957 for a term of 10 years redeemable in the year 1967; that the defendant No. 1-company issued a not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preference shares for 10 years period and which were due for redemption in the year 1967. The trial Court has dismissed the suit by making the following observations:- 9. It is true that for deciding an application U/O 7 Rule 11, the averments made in the plaint are to be considered. Defence of the defendant in the Written Statement has to be ignored. In the suit plaintiff prayed for decree of declaration declaring that 3065 6% Tax Free Cumulative Redeemable Preference Share cannot be substituted by fresh issuance of shares. The second declaration sought was that after due date of redemption of 3065 Preference Shares the right of shareholders was only to recover the share money. Since 29 years had passed, the debt had become time b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oard, we find that the relief sought by the plaintiff otherwise cannot be granted. 4. A reading of the aforesaid paras shows that the trial Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred as the Company Law Board has jurisdiction under Section 111 of the Act. In my opinion, the trial Court has misdirected itself in holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Section 111, sub-sections (4) and (5) of the Act are in fact reproduction of the erstwhile Section 155 of the Act. The repealed Section 155 of the Act reads as under:- 155. Power of Court to rectify register of members.-(1) If- (a) the name of any person- (i) is without sufficient cause, entered in the register of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, 1908: (a) if the order be passed by a District Court, to the High Court; (b) if the order be passed by a single Judge of a High Court consisting of three or more Judges, to the Bench of that High Court. (5) The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (4) shall apply in relation to the rectification of the register of debenture holders as they apply in relation to the rectification of the register of members. 5. While dealing with the provision of Section 155, the Supreme Court in the case of Claude-Lila Parulekar (Smt) Vs. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 73 had held that the jurisdiction of the Company Court under Section 155 of the Act and of the Civil Court under Section 9 of CPC ....