LexTHE BRIHAN MAHARASHTRA SUGAR SYNDICATE LTD. versus JANARDAN RAMCHANDRA KULKARNI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J( ' - ' 3 S.O.R. SUPREME OOlJRT REPORTS 85 and in substance this claim has been rejected by the i96o appellate tribunal on the ground that sufficient materfal has not been placed before it by the appellant T. ~0~}.1~'.pzy on which the claim could be examined and grantedi v. In such a case we do not see how we can interfere in Its Workmen • favour of the appellant.' The present decision will . -- not preclude the appellant from making a similar Ga1endragadkar J. claim in future and justifying it by leading proper evidence. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. - Appeal dismissed. THE BRIHAN MAHARASHTRA SUGAR SYNDICATE LTD. ~ ' JANARDAN RAMOHANDRA KULKARNI AND OTHERS (S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) Company Law-Proceedings pending under the repealed Act-If and when could be continued-Indian Companies Act, I9IJ, (VII of I9I3) s. IS3-C-Companies Act, Ig56, (I of Ig56) ss. IO and 647. The respondent had made an application under s. 153-C of the Companies Act, 19:1;3, with an alternative prayer for winding up against the appellant company, to the District Judge, Poona, who had been authorised under the Act to exercise jurisdiction. While the application was pending the Companies Act, 1913, was repealed by the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant company thereupon applied to the District Judge to dismiss the appli- cation on the ground that he had ceased to have any jurisdiction to deal with the application on the repeal of the Companies Act or 1913. Held, that s. 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved the juris- diction of the District Judge to deal with the application under s. 153-C of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, notwithstanding therepeal of that Act. Section 647 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not indicate any intention to affect the rights under the Indian Companies Act of 1913, for s. 658 of the Companies Act of 1956 made s. 6 of the General Clauses Act applicable notwithstanding anything con- tained in s. 647 of that Act. r960 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] I960 Section 24 of the General Clauses Act does not put an end to any notification. It does not therefore cancel the notification B. M. Sugar issued under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 in so far as that Syndicate Ltd. notification empowered the District Judge to exercise jurisdiction v. under s. 153-C of the Indian Companies Act of 1913 even though ]. R. Kulkarni under s. 10 of the Companies Act of 1956, a District Judge can no longer be empowered to exercise jurisdiction under (a) sections 397 to 407 of the Companies Act, 1956, which correspond to s. 153-C of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 or (b) in respect of the winding up of a company with a paid up share capital of not less than Rs. 1,00,000/- which the appellant company was. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 513 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 20, 1957, of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 600 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated October 17, 1956, of the District Judge, Poona, in Misc. Petition No. 2 of 1956. H. D. Banaji, S. N. Arulley, J. B. Darlachanji, Hameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the.appellant. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Sorab N. Vakil, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff~ for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 1960. February, 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sarkar J. SARKAR, J.-Respondcnts Nos. 1 to 4 are share- holders in the company which is the appellant in this case. They made an application against the appel- lant and its directors under s. 153-C of the Companies Act, 1913 before that Act was repealed on April 1, 1956, as hereinafter mentioned, for certa.in reliefs which it is not necessary to state. This Act will be referred to as the Act of 1913. This application had been made to the Court of the District Judge of Poona which Court had been empowered to exercise jurisdic- tion under the Act of 1913 by a notification issued by the Government of Bombay under s. 3(1) of that Act. Before the application could be disposed of by the District Judge, Poona, the Act of 1913 was repealed and re-enacted on April 1, 1956, by the Companies Act of 1956, which will be referred to as the Act of 1956. On or about June 28, 1956, the appellant made an application to the District Judge of Poona for an order dismissing the application under s. 153-C of the ' - • ' • -f- 3 S.C.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.