Skip to content


Asoka Tea Estate (Private) Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 649 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Mad334
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 10, 10(2), 75 and 645; Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 3; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 24
AppellantAsoka Tea Estate (Private) Ltd.
RespondentRegistrar of Joint Stock Companies, Madras
Appellant AdvocateT.K. Subramania Pillai, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....and conditions as it thinks fit, empower any district court to exercise all or any of the jurisdiction conferred by the act in respect of certain matters.no such notification has been issued by the central government after the coming into force of the new act empowering the district court of coimbatore to exercise jurisdiction under any of the sections of the new act. the old companies act of 1913 and all cognate enactments had been repealed by the enactment of the present act. as under the new companies act jurisdiction had not yet been conferred upon the district court to entertain applications under section 75(4) of the new act, the present application could not be entertained by the district court.4. it is common ground that under the companies act of 1913 the district court.....
Judgment:

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.

1. This revision petition arises out of an application made by a private limited company to the District Court of Coimbatore under Section 75(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 praying that the delay in filing a statement in form No. 2 of the allotment of shares before the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Madras, may be condoned and that time may be extended for filing the said document upto 20-7-1956.

2. The only facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are: On 6-4-1956, 234 shares of the company were allotted to 16 persons. The new Act of 1956 came into force on 1-4-1956. For some reason or other, no allotment was filed in the prescribed form under the new Companies Act. It was only on 12th July, 1956, that the Registrar supplied the petitioner with the requisite form and the petitioner filed the statement in proper form on 20-7-1956.

Under Section 75(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, the company had to file the statement within one month of the allotment. As the statement was not filed in proper form within the time prescribed, the petitioner applied to the District Court for a condonation of the delay and for an order extending the time upto 20-7-1956.

3. When the application came on for hearing before the learned District Judge he held that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and therefore returned the petition to the petitioner for being presented to the proper court having jurisdiction The reasoning of the learned Judge was this. Under Section 10 of the Act of 1956 the High Court is the court having jurisdiction except to the extent to which jurisdiction has been conferred on any District Court subordinate to the High Court in pursuance of Sub-section (2), which provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as it thinks fit, empower any District Court to exercise all or any of the jurisdiction conferred by the Act in respect of certain matters.

No such notification has been issued by the Central Government after the coming into force of the new Act empowering the District Court of Coimbatore to exercise jurisdiction under any of the sections of the new Act. The old Companies Act of 1913 and all cognate enactments had been repealed by the enactment of the present Act. As under the new Companies Act jurisdiction had not yet been conferred upon the District Court to entertain applications under Section 75(4) of the new Act, the present application could not be entertained by the District Court.

4. It is common ground that under the Companies Act of 1913 the District Court had been invested with jurisdiction under Section 3 of the old Act corresponding to Section 10 of the new Act. Before the District Judge Section 615 of the Companies Act of 1956 was relied on by the petitioner. That section saves certain orders, rules, regulations, appointments, mortgages, deeds, documents, proceedings etc. passed, made or done in pursuance of previous companies law of 1913. Such orders, rules, regulations etc.. shall if in force at the commencement of the Act of 1936, continue to be in force, and so far as it could have been made, directed, passed, given, taken, executed, issued or done, shall have effect as it made directed etc. In pursuance of the new Act.

5. I find it difficult to hold that the notification published under Section 3 of the old Act falls within any of the categories enumerated in Section 645 of the new Act of 1956. But in my opinion Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, X of ,1897, is directly in point and continues the jurisdiction of the District Courts conferred on them by the order of the Government in 1947. That section in so far as it is material runs thus:

'Where any Central Act or Regulation is, after the commencement of this Act, repealed or re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under the repealed Act or Regulation shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification. ..... ..made or issuedunder the provisions so re-enacted.'

By virtue of this section the notification of the Government in G. O. No. Ms. 654, Development dated 20-2-1947 must be deemed to continue in force even after the coming into force of the new Act of 1956. The District Court had therefore jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application. It is common ground that Section 104 of the old Act which corresponds to Section 75 of the new Act is not one of the excepted sections either under Section 3 of the old Act or Section 10 of the new Act of 1956 respectively.

6. The civil revision petition is allowed andthe order of the learned District Judge returning thepetition to the petitioner is set aside. The application made by the petitioner will be restored to fileand disposed of in accordance with law. No orderas to costs.


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