PRABHAT FILM CO LTD Vs. ANANT VISHNU DAMLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition for winding up the Prabhat Film Co. Ltd. , which is the applicants before me, was presented before the District Judge, Poona, and an objection was taken on behalf of the applicant that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The learned District Judge held that he had such jurisdiction, and it is from that order that this revision application is preferred.

(2.) SECTION 3 of the Indian Companies Act confers jurisdiction upon the High Court in respect of company matters, but there is a proviso to that section which lays down "that the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such restrictions and conditions as it think fir, empower any District Court to exercise all or any of the jurisdiction by this Act conferred upon the Court, and in that case such District Court shall, as regards the jurisdiction so conferred, be the Court in respect of all companies having their registered offices in the district. "

(3.) IN support of this contention reliance is placed on a recent decision of this Court reported in Narottamdas Jethabhai v. Phillips. There we were considering Sections 3 and 4 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, and we held that Section 4 of that Act was invalid and of no effect as it conferred upon the Provincial Government the power to invest the Bombay City Civil Court with jurisdiction to try claims exceeding Rs. 10,000 in value. It is clear from that judgment that we contrasted Section 3 and 4 of that Act. Section 3 set up the City Civil Court and it left it to the Provincial Government to determine the time when that Court should come into existence, and when the Government determined the time it had to issue a notification which would empower that Court to function. We held that the Legislature had exercised its judgment and violation in bringing that Court into existence. But that was a Court with a certain limited jurisdiction. Then we held that Section 4 indicated that the Legislature had not applied its mind and judgment to the question of the Court having an increased jurisdiction up to Rs. 25,000 and it was left to the executive to decide whether the City Civil Court should have the increased jurisdiction or not. It was on that ground that we held Section 4 to be bad.