Skip to content


In Re: Company - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCompany M.P. No. 9 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Ker60
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 10; Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 3
AppellantIn Re: Company
Appellant Advocate P. Govindan Nair and; P.K. Kurien, Advs.
Respondent Advocate K.P. Abraham and; V.V. Sebastian, Advs.
Cases ReferredOistrict Court. See British India Corporation Ltd. v. Shanti Narain
Excerpt:
- .....issued by the government of india and by the t.c. state government under section 3 of the repealed companies act, 1913.. the argument is that these notifications still apply notwithstanding the repeal of the companies act, 1913, and its replacement by the act of 1956.it is not contended on the petitioner's side that the notification is any way inconsistent with the express provisions in section 10 of the act of 1956 corresponding to the repealed section 3. if so, the notifications do apply and the result is that the court of exclusive jurisdiction in the matter concerned is the oistrict court. see british india corporation ltd. v. shanti narain, air 1935 all 310 (a).3. i therefore direct the return of the company petition no. 9 of 56 herein to the petitionerfor presentation to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Varadaraja Iyengar, J.

1. This is a petition to rectify the register of the 1st respondent company.

2. Preliminary objection has been raised that this petition ought to have been filed in the District Court having jurisdiction in the matter and not in the High Court and reliance Is placed on the Notifications dated 23-5-1951 and 27-9-1951 Issued by the Government of India and by the T.C. State Government under Section 3 of the repealed Companies Act, 1913.. The argument is that these notifications still apply notwithstanding the repeal of the Companies Act, 1913, and its replacement by the Act of 1956.

It is not contended on the petitioner's side that the notification is any way inconsistent with the express provisions in Section 10 of the Act of 1956 corresponding to the repealed Section 3. If so, the Notifications do apply and the result is that the Court of exclusive jurisdiction in the matter concerned is the Oistrict Court. See British India Corporation Ltd. v. Shanti Narain, AIR 1935 All 310 (A).

3. I therefore direct the return of the Company petition No. 9 of 56 herein to the petitionerfor presentation to the proper Court. There will, however, be no order for costs.


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