Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In Shri Gulabrai Kalidas Naik v. Shri Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel of Baroda [1978] 48 Comp Cas 438 (Guj), one of the question that was posed before the learned judge for decision was whether the company court would entertain a petition for relief under section 155 of the Companies Act if it involved disputes on questions of fact. It will be sufficient to set out the headnote which is as follows :

" There is nothing in the language of section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, which even remotely suggests that the jurisdiction conferred on the court is of a summary nature and that it precludes a full inquiry in respect of the title to shares. On the other hand, sub-section (3) of section 155 gives discretion to the court, ` to decide any question which it is necessary or expedient to decide in connection with the application for rectification'. This expression is wider in amplitude than the well-known expression `questions which are ancillary or incidental to the main question'. The jurisdiction conferred by section 155(3) is a comprehensive jurisdiction which enables the court in an application under section 155 to examine all questions, complex, intricate or otherwise, relating to the title to shares, and further enlarges the jurisdiction of the court considers necessary or expedient to decide in connection with the application for rectification of the register of shareholders is made, it would be open to the court, while considering the main relief, to decide all questions that may arise in such an application on rival contentions. To illustrate, if a petitioner asserts his title to the shares and the respondent contends that the title was acquired by a forged document, forgery would be put in issue and it would be necessary to decide the issue of forgery before the main prayer for rectification of register can be granted.