Allowed

Hindustan Sugars Ltd. and Anr. v. Nandkishor Shankarrao Kamthe and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2014COAPP/32/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of the appeal against a Company Law Board order determining jurisdiction. While setting aside theBoard's finding on exclusive Principal Bench jurisdiction for Section 250, the Court mandated that all pending applications be heard by the Mumbai Bench and ordered the transfer of specific petitions from Delhi to Mumbai.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside to the extent of Section 250 jurisdiction; Company Petition No.01/2013 transferred to Mumbai Bench; all pending applications directed to be heard only by Mumbai Bench.

Hindustan Sugars Ltd. and Anr. Vs Nandkishor Shankarrao… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

19-COAPPL-7-2014.DOC

¶2

Vishal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO.07 OF 2014 IN

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO.01 OF 2013

¶5

Hindustan Sugars Ltd. and Anr....Appellants/
(Ori.Respdts.)
 Versus
Shri. Nandkishor Shankarrao Kamthe & Ors....Respondents/
(Ori. Petitioners)

¶6

Mr. Shekhar Jagtap for the Appellants.
Mr. Rahul Chitnis a/w.Karan Thorat for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: APRIL 02, 2014.

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1.This appeal against an order dated 2nd January 2014 of the
Company Law Board can be disposed of at the stage of admission
by consent of parties.

¶10

2.Between the parties there are several proceedings pending
before the Company Law Board. Some are before the Mumbai
Bench and one is before the Principal Bench in New Delhi.

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

19-COAPPL-7-2014.DOC

¶13

3.The impugned order holds that it is the only Mumbai Bench
has jurisdiction to hear the matters under Sections 247 and 237 of
the Companies Act, 1956. The impugned order also holds that it is
only the Principal Bench in New Delhi has exclusive jurisdiction to
hear matters under Section 250 of the Companies Act, 1956. For
that reason, it also holds that a prayer under Sections 247 and 237
cannot be entertained in a composite petition under Section 250
read with Sections 237 and 247 of the Companies Act 1956 by the
Principal Bench, New Delhi. In the facts of this case, and limited to
this case alone, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that it
holds that it is only the Principal Bench that has jurisdiction to hear
matters under Section 250 of the Companies Act, 1956.

¶14

4.All applications pending between the parties shall be taken
up by the Mumbai Bench alone. This includes Company Petition
No.01/2013 under Section 250 of the Companies Act, 1956;
Company Petition No.70/2013 under Sections 397 and 398 of the
Companies Act, 1956; Company Petition No.36 of 2014 under
Sections 235 and 237 of the Companies Act, 1956; and Company
Application No.74/2014 in Company Petition No.70/2013 under
Section 247 of the Companies Act, 1956. Company Application
No.227/2013 in Company Petition No.70/2013 on the questions of
maintainability of Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act,1956,
shall also be heard and disposed of only by the Mumbai Bench of
the Company Law Board.

¶15

5. It is clarified that all contentions of the parties are expressly left open.

¶16

2 of 3

¶17

19-COAPPL-7-2014.DOC

¶18

6.All further applications shall also be made before Mumbai
Bench and not before the Principal Bench, New Delhi.

¶19

7.Company Petition No.01/2013 pending before the Principal
Bench, New Delhi shall stand transferred to the Mumbai Bench. All
concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶20

8.Any interim or ad-interim orders obtained till now shall
continue. Parties shall be at liberty to make such applications as
they think fit for further orders or for recall or modification of any
orders passed earlier.

¶21

9.If any extension is required of any order, that application
shall also be made before the Mumbai Bench.

¶22

10. Appeal stands disposed of in these terms.

¶23

11. No order as to costs.

¶24

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶25

3 of 3

Hindustan Sugars Ltd. and Anr. v. Nandkishor Shankarrao Kamthe and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Sugars Ltd. and Anr. v. Nandkishor Shankarrao Kamthe and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddharth Das Vs High Mark Credit Information Services Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.774130MH2005PTC216732

Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Sundeep Polymers (P) Ltd.

Indian Petrochemicals Corpn.Ltd. Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai and Anr.

The Indian Express Ltd. Vs M/S.Magna Publishing Co. Ltd.

M/S.Mona Pharmachem Vs R J Feeds Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.U74999MH2007PTC174751

M/S.Mehta Vetcare Vs R J Feeds Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.U74999MH2007PTC174751