1. Ravinder Kumar Jain, petitioner, has moved this petition under Section 166 read with Section 171 of the Companies Act, against the Punjab Registered (Iron and Steel) Stockholders Association Ltd., to seek the primary relief that the meeting of the respondent-company held on the 28th September, 1977, be declared illegal and void. The petition is primarily based on the allegations that the notices issued for the calling of the annual general meeting violated the statutory period of 21 clear days. Written statement has been filed and the replication on behalf of the petitioner was also placed on the record. From the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issue was struck :
' Whether the present petition under Section 166 read with Section 171 of the Companies Act, 1956, is maintainable in this court in the present form ?'
2. It appears to me that it would be wasteful to dilate on this matter because the same appears to be concluded against the petitioner by a number ofjudgments of this court. In Panipat Woollen and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. R. L. Kaushik  39 Comp Cas 249 (Punj), Pandit J., by a considered judgment, came to the conclusion that the civil courts had jurisdiction to try a suit challenging the validity and regularity of the general meeting of a company and the election of directors held therein. In Siri Ram v. Edward Ganj Public Welfare Association Ltd.  47 Comp Cas 283 (Punj) also the validity of the meeting of a company and the election of its directors therein was sought to be assailed on a variety of grounds. Tuli J., whilst holding that the petition was not maintainable, observed that this was not a matter for decision under Section 186 of the Companies Act.
3. The case which directly covers the point, however, is the categoric opinion of Sharrna J. in S. Niranjan Singh v. Edward Ganj Public Welfare Association  47 Comp Cas 285 (Punj). Therein also the validity of a meeting of the company and the election held therein was sought to be challenged. The learned judge relying on the aforementioned two authorities concluded as follows (page 286):
' In view of this I hold that this petition is not competent before me and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a civil suit. This petition is accordingly dismissed.'
4. Before me, no cogent argument has been raised to assail the correctness of the view expressed in Niranjan Singh's case  47 Comp Cas 285 (Punj) referred to above. As at present advised, I see no reason to take a contrary view. Following the same it is held that the present petition is not maintainable. The 'preliminary issue is decided in favour of the respondent and the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.