Skip to content


Ravinder Kumar JaIn Vs. Punjab Registered (iron and Steel) Stockholders Association Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCompany Petition No. 212 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1978]48CompCas401(P& H)
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 166 and 171
AppellantRavinder Kumar Jain
RespondentPunjab Registered (iron and Steel) Stockholders Association Ltd.
Appellant Advocate D.R. Nanda and; S.P. Jain, Advs.
Respondent Advocate Bhagirath Dass and; G.S. Chawla, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredS. Niranjan Singh v. Edward Ganj Public Welfare Association
Excerpt:
.....single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the..........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.....
Judgment:

Sandhawalia, J.

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 [1969] 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. [1977] 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 [1977] 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 [1977] 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //