Supreme Court Allows Appeal and Sets Aside Company Law Board Order Holding Special Court Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Under Section 9-A(2) of Special Court Act, 1992. Company Law Board is a Court for Transfer of Pending Securities Claims Involving Notified Persons, Overriding Companies Act, 1956 Jurisdiction.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

Background: The appeal arose from a dispute over the registration of bonds of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. purchased by Canara Bank. Canara Bank had filed an application before the Company Law Board under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking registration of the bonds in its name, but the Nuclear Power Corporation refused to register them because Standard Chartered Bank also claimed ownership. The bonds were acquired through broker Hiten P. Dalal, a notified person under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. Facts: Canara Bank alleged it purchased the bonds from Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. through Hiten P. Dalal. While the application was pending before the Company Law Board, the Special Court Act was amended on 25 January 1994 by the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Ordinance, 1994, which inserted Section 9-A. Canara Bank and Nuclear Power Corporation took the stand that the application stood transferred to the Special Court by virtue of Section 9-A(2). Standard Chartered Bank contended that the Company Law Board retained jurisdiction. The Company Law Board held that it was not a court within the meaning of the Companies Act nor a civil court, and its jurisdiction was unaffected by Section 9-A(2). Legal Issues: The core question was whether the Company Law Board is a 'court' for purposes of Section 9-A(2) of the Special Court Act, 1992, and whether the pending application stood transferred to the Special Court. Arguments: Canara Bank and Nuclear Power Corporation argued that the application fell within Section 9-A(2) because it was a legal proceeding pending before a court and its cause of action arose out of transactions in securities involving a notified person. Standard Chartered Bank argued that the Company Law Board was not a court and therefore the transfer provision did not apply. The Company Law Board reasoned that it was not a civil court and its special statutory jurisdiction under Section 111 of the Companies Act remained intact. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court analysed Section 9-A of the Special Court Act. Section 9-A(1) confers on the Special Court all jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by a civil court in relation to claims relating to attached property or arising from securities transactions between 1 April 1991 and 6 June 1992 involving a notified person. Section 9-A(2) transfers every suit, claim or other legal proceeding pending before any court immediately before the commencement of the Amendment Ordinance if its cause of action would have been within the Special Court's jurisdiction. The court held that the words 'civil court' in Section 9-A(1) define the extent of jurisdiction and powers, not the nature of the forum. The Company Law Board, while exercising powers under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, acts as a court for the purposes of Section 9-A(2). The non obstante clause in Section 13 of the Special Court Act gives overriding effect to its provisions notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law, including the Companies Act, 1956. Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Company Law Board's order, and held that the Company Law Board is a 'court' within the meaning of Section 9-A(2) of the Special Court Act, 1992. Consequently, the application pending before the Company Law Board stood transferred to the Special Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Headnote

A) Special Court - Civil Jurisdiction - Section 9-A(1) Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 - The Special Court exercises all jurisdiction, powers and authority of a civil court in relation to claims relating to attached property or arising from securities transactions between 1 April 1991 and 6 June 1992 involving a notified person - The court analysed Section 9-A(1) and held that the Special Court's jurisdiction was exclusive; the words 'civil court' defined the scope of powers, not the nature of the forum - Held that the Special Court had jurisdiction over the claim (Paras 4-8).

B) Transfer of Pending Proceedings - Section 9-A(2) Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 - Pending suits, claims or legal proceedings before any court stood transferred to Special Court if cause of action would have been within its jurisdiction - The court held that the Company Law Board, while exercising powers under Section 111 of Companies Act, 1956, is a 'court' for purposes of Section 9-A(2); therefore the application before it stood transferred - Held that the Company Law Board's order refusing transfer was erroneous and the proceedings stood transferred to the Special Court (Paras 2-8).

C) Overriding Effect - Non Obstante Clause - Section 13 Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 - Provisions of Special Court Act have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law - The court applied Section 13 to override the Companies Act, 1956 jurisdiction of Company Law Board - Held that the Special Court Act prevailed over inconsistent provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (Paras 4-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Company Law Board is a 'court' within the meaning of Section 9-A(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, and whether proceedings pending before it stood transferred to the Special Court.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Company Law Board order, and held that the Company Law Board is a court within the meaning of Section 9-A(2) of the Special Court Act, 1992; the application pending before it stood transferred to the Special Court.

Law Points

  • Special Court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil matters relating to transactions in securities involving notified persons
  • Company Law Board is a court for purposes of Section 9-A(2)
  • Section 9-A overrides inconsistent provisions
  • pending proceedings before Company Law Board stood transferred to Special Court
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1995 LawText (SC) (03) 14

1995-03-06

S.P. Bharucha, Jagdish Saran Verma, K.S. Paripoornan

1995 SCC Supl. (3) 81, JT 1995 (3) 42, 1995 SCALE (2)162

Canara Bank

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal by Canara Bank against Company Law Board order holding it retained jurisdiction over an application under Section 111 of Companies Act, 1956 despite Section 9-A of Special Court Act, 1992.

Remedy Sought

Canara Bank sought transfer of its application pending before Company Law Board to the Special Court under Section 9-A(2) of the Special Court Act, 1992.

Filing Reason

Company Law Board refused to transfer the application, holding it was not a court and its jurisdiction unaffected; Canara Bank challenged this order.

Previous Decisions

Company Law Board held it was not a court within meaning of Companies Act or a civil court, and its jurisdiction was unaffected by Section 9-A(2) of Special Court Act.

Issues

Whether Company Law Board is a court for purposes of Section 9-A(2) of the Special Court Act, 1992. Whether proceedings pending before Company Law Board stood transferred to Special Court. Whether Section 9-A of Special Court Act has overriding effect over Companies Act, 1956.

Submissions/Arguments

Canara Bank and Nuclear Power Corporation argued that the application stood transferred to the Special Court by virtue of Section 9-A(2) of the Special Court Act. Standard Chartered Bank contended that the Company Law Board retained jurisdiction to deal with the application. Company Law Board held that it was not a court within the meaning of the Companies Act nor a civil court, and therefore its jurisdiction was unaffected.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 9-A of the Special Court Act, 1992 confers exclusive civil jurisdiction on the Special Court in matters relating to transactions in securities involving notified persons; 'court' in Section 9-A(2) includes the Company Law Board, and pending proceedings before it stand transferred; the non obstante clause in Section 13 overrides inconsistent provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

Judgment Excerpts

The Company Law Board (CLB) has held that its jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to securities, provided by the Companies Act, 1956, is not affected by the Special Court Act. The words 'civil court' are used in the context of the jurisdiction, powers and authority that the Special Court may exercise.

Procedural History

Canara Bank filed application before Company Law Board under Section 111 of Companies Act seeking registration of bonds; Standard Chartered Bank claimed ownership; application pending; on 25 January 1994 Special Court Act amended inserting Section 9-A; Canara Bank and Nuclear Power Corporation urged transfer; Company Law Board held it retained jurisdiction; Canara Bank appealed to Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992: 2(c), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 4(1), 6, 7, 9, 10, 11(1), 11(2), 13, 15, 9-A, 9-B
  • Companies Act, 1956: 111
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 123, 124
  • Arbitration Act, 1940:
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Quashes Lok Adalat Award Against Insurance Company in Motor Accident Claim — Consent Given Without Proper Verification. Act Only Policy Does Not Cover Occupant of Vehicle, and Lok Adalat Award Based on Misunderstanding of Advoc...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Industrial Tribunal Award in Dearness Allowance Dispute; Government Empowered to Transfer Reference Under Amended Industrial Disputes Act. Fresh Agreement Between Parties Supersedes Previous Award Even Without Termination Under ...