Skip to main content

Each And All Proceedings Under Companies Act 1956 Stands Transferred To NCLT

"In case of inconsistency, new act will override older act"

In Prasanta Kumar Mitra vs India Steam Laundry (P) Ltd., appeal was filed before the divisional bench of the Calcutta High Court against order that the High court has lost jurisdiction from 15th December 2016 to entertain all proceedings under Companies Act, 1956 and the same stood transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal.

The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, upholding the single bench order, held as follows:
      
1) The jurisdiction of the High Court in company matters being a special jurisdiction conferred by the 1956 Act, and not being a civil jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the same can always be ousted by the amendment of the enactment that conferred the said jurisdiction. Hence, no express repealing is required and the same can be repealed by implication

2) Change of forum is not a choice of parties, but is the choice of the legislature. The parties cannot contend that they have a vested right to continue in the forum the lis was initiated. The legislature can always change the forum. Forum is a matter of procedure and change of the same does not result in change of substantive rights of parties

3) The term ‘including’ in Section 434(1)(c) of the 2013 Act is extensive and expansive and not restrictive in nature. Accordingly, Section 434(1)(c) of the 2013 Act that states “all proceedings under the Companies Act 2013 including proceedings relating to....” would include all matters, without any exception, pending before the District Courts and High Court and all such matters would have to be transferred to the NCLT.

4) The moment a new enactment comes into the statutory books, dealing with the same subject matter and specifically dealing with the same issue, and the transitional provision becomes inconsistent with the new enactment, the transitional provision has to go due to repugnancy. As held in (c) above, Section 434(1)(c) deals with all proceedings under the 1956 Act. Therefore, there is a clear inconsistency between the said provision and Section 68 of the Amendment Act, 1988. Consequentially, since the transitional provision is inconsistent with the new provision, it is impliedly repealed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more