Case: Rai Bahadur Gujarmal Modi &amp; Bros. Private Limited Vs. Godfrey Philips India Limited &amp; Another

In the said Company Application, K.K.Modi (the second respondent) made an Application, directing the Applicant (Appellant herein) to implead him as party Respondent in the Company Application. We are informed that vide order dated 20th January, 2006, the Application made by Mr.K.K.Modi for his impleadment, was made absolute.3. The learned Company Judge heard the parties and by the order dated 6th of July, 2006, took the view that it was not a fit case for entertaining the company Application.4. Aggrieved thereby, the present Appeal has been preferred by the original Applicant.

Reasoning: 13. In our considered view, section 10 of the Act of 1956 only determines the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The said provision cannot be construed to mean that the High Court has jurisdiction with respect to all matters relating to a Company. Wherever a special remedy before the Special Court has been provided, the legislature has made special provisions under the Act of 1956. That the High Court, as a company court is a special court with special company jurisdiction, needs no elaboration. The jurisdiction of the company court has to be found specifically from the provisions of the Act and it cannot be said that even where no special forum is provided under the Act of 1956, yet the High Court as a company court has jurisdiction to deal with all matters under the Companies Act. This will mean conferring a special jurisdiction to the Special Court (read High Court in the present case) when the legislature has not provided that specifically and expressly. The power that has been conferred on the High Court under the Companies Act is not plenary power enabling it to deal with all matters and all questions and all issues arising under the Companies Act. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the view of the Calcutta High Court, Gujarat High Court and Kerala High Court, referred to hereinabove. Our view is also consistent with the decision of this Court in the case of Santosh Poddar.Surely, from the aforesaid observations in Shripal Jains case, it cannot be said that the Application under section 84(4) could be maintained before the company Court by invoking section 2(11) read with section 10 of the Companies Act.17. We have no hesitation in holding that a special court viz., "company court" cannot be said to have jurisdiction to decide all issues and all questions under the Act of 1956 until specific provision is made in that regard under that Act.18. With regard to the Application under section 84(4), we find that no specific provision has been made conferring jurisdiction on the company court under section 2(11) read with section 10.