K. NATARAJAN AND ORS. Vs. K. KRISHNA PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for striking off the plaint in O.S. No. 5235 of 2015 pending on the file of XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on the premise that the jurisdiction of the Court was barred by Section 10GB of the old Companies Act, 1956 and that the new Companies Act, 2013 enacted, which has repealed the Companies Act, 1956 also contains a provision under Section 430 excluding such jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in such company matters.

(2.) The reliance made by the petitioner under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been pre-empted by the respondent/plaintiff by making an averment that the said Section had not come into force as it was not notified till the filing of the suit. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Section 465 of the Companies Act, 2013 contains a proviso that until notification, the repealed Companies Act, 1956 shall continue to operate and that hence, the bar of Civil Courts jurisdiction provided under Section 10GB of the Companies Act, 1956 squarely applies to the suit in question. In short, the crux of the contention of the petitioner is that the suit filed before the trial Court is one barred by a statute.

(3.) There is a specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, namely Order VII Rule 11 dealing with rejection of plaint on various grounds. One of the grounds mentioned therein for rejection of plaint is that the suit should appear, from the statement found in the plaint, to be barred by law. For better appreciation Rule 11 under Order VII CPC is re-produced: