SPICES VALLEY ESTATE LTD Vs. TC FOREXPRESS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the first defendant/company, as against the dismissal of the I.A., filed by it under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC to reject the Plaint.

(2.) ACCORDING to the revision petitioner/first defendant they filed the said application for rejection of the Plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground that there is no cause of action which arose to institute the suit before the City Civil Court at Chennai and therefore there is no territorial jurisdiction for the court to entertain the said suit. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the said application on the ground that the entire cause of action happened only in Chennai and therefore the suit filed before the City Civil Court, Chennai is well maintainable.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 which supersedes Section 155 of the companies Act, 1956 which gave limited power to civil court to deal with the matters concerning transfer of shares effective change in the share register etc., According to the learned counsel, any petition alleging mismanagement or oppression and suppression etc., falls within the ambit of Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. As per Section 10 of the Act, the petition against the Company can be filed in the Court within whose jurisdiction the registered office of the company located. But, in the present case on and from 11.2.2000 the Registered Office of the revision petitioner was transferred to Calcutta whereas the suit was filed in June 2000. According to the first defendant, the plaintiff was aware of the shifting of the registered office from Chennai to Calcutta, yet it has filed the suit. LEARNED counsel contended that the relief's claimed in the suit can be redressed by the Company Law Board and appealed to the High Court and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely ousted.