Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
V. Timmappa vs M.G. Brothers Finance Ltd. And Ors. on 16 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(1)ALD179, [2008]143COMPCAS233(AP), [2008]81SCL231(AP)
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Respondent No. l obtained a money decree against respondents 2 to 4 and the revision petitioner and filed E.P. for executing the said decree. Revision Petitioner filed an objection stating that inasmuch as the decree-holder i.e., first respondent is a Company, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or execute the decree, and so, the decree passed is without jurisdiction and cannot be executed in view of Section 10 of the Companies Act. The executing Court overruled the said objection and ordered further steps in the E.P. Hence this revision.
2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that inasmuch as Section 10 of the Companies Act lays down that the 'Court' having jurisdiction under this Act, is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate, except to the extent to which jurisdiction has been conferred on any District Court or District Courts subordinate to that High Court in pursuance of Sub-section (2), and where jurisdiction has been so conferred, the District Court in regard to matters falling within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred, in respect of companies having their registered offices in the district, it is only the High Court or the District Court concerned that can entertain the suit filed by the first respondent and so, the decree passed by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge is non-est in law and cannot be executed.
3. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that inasmuch as Section 10 of the Companies Act lays down that 'the Court having jurisdiction under this Act' means the Court specified therein, civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suits for recovery of money filed by a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, because matters which are to be dealt with by the Court under that Act i.e., the Companies Act are matters relating to winding up of a Company etc., which are mentioned in that Act. Section 10 of the Companies Act has to be read in conjunction with the other provisions contained therein relating to winding up of the company etc., which make a reference to 'the Court' under the Companies Act deciding the issues mentioned therein.
4. Companies Act does not contain the provisions relating to recovery of money either lent by, or borrowed from, a Company registered under the provisions of that Act. So, in view of Section 9 CPC, Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain suits for recovery of money filed by a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. For that reason and since the jurisdiction of Civil Court for recovery of money lent by or borrowed from the Company is not either expressly or by implication barred by the provisions of the Companies Act. Civil Court certainly will have jurisdiction to entertain suit for recovery of money filed by a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, from its debtors.
5. Section 21 CPC lays down that objection relating to competence of the Court with reference to pecuniary limits of jurisdiction etc., has to be taken at the earliest stage before issues are settled, and since the revision petitioner did not admittedly take such objection in the trial Court, he cannot raise any objection relating to jurisdiction of the trial Court at the stage of execution. For that reason and since the provisions of Section 10 of the Companies Act have no application to suits for recovery of money filed by a Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, the executing Court overruling the objections of the petitioner cannot be said to be erroneous and so I find no ground to admit the revision and hence the same is dismissed.