Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.35 seconds)
G.Nirmal Kumar Bafna vs Reliance Industries Ltd on 30 April, 2021 cites

Thiruvalluvar Velanmal Kazhagam ... vs M.K. Seethai Achi on 2 July, 1987

26. Therefore, Section 10 of the Act oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in respect of the matters falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court under the Companies Act. Section 111 of the Companies Act provides for the power of the Company to refuse registration and provides for an appeal against the said order under Section 111 (3). The claim of the appellant would fall within the 19/24 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.No.106 of 2008 provisions of Section 111 (4) (a) (i) of the Companies Act, 1956, which provides that a person aggrieved has to apply to the Company Law Board as it then was. Therefore, considering the observation of this Court in (1987) 64 CompCas 304 – Thiruvalluvar Velanmai Kazhagam (P) Ltd Vs. M.K.Seethai Achi, the suit filed before the City Civil Court is not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 24 October, 1997

27. The Gujarat High Court in the Judgement reported in (1999) 97 CompCas 301 – Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Vs. Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. and others, while answering the issue as to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of prayers seeking permanent injunction and temporary injunction against the Company from registering transfer of shares had returned a finding that this prayer falls within the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under Section 111 and 111 A. Therefore by implication, the 20/24 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.No.106 of 2008 jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.
Gujarat High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next