Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) Shyanialesh Nath Bhaduri claiming to be a member of the Mining, Geological and Metallurgical Institute of India (hereinafter called the Institute) has filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the said Institute, its President, its Hony. Secretary, Hony. Treasurer and two others, Inter-alia, for the following reliefs:- (a) for a declaration that the appointment of defendant No. 4 as the Convener, Board of Scrutineers in terms of the meeting held on 14.10.1977 is invalid, illegal and cot in accordance with law as it contravenes the article 36 (a) of the Institute ; (b) for a declaration that the seeking of election of the defendant No. 3 is illegal, invalid and not in accordance with law as he is already a Council Member of the defendant No. 1 ; (c) for a declaration that the seeking of election of defendant Nos. 5 & 6 is illegal, invalid and not in accordance with law as it contravenes article 34 ; (d) for a declaration that the notice dated 19th October, 1977 as issued by the defendant No. 4 is illegal, inoperative, unenforceable and null and void ; (e) for a declaration that the covering notice dated 12th December, 1977 as well as the circulation of ballot papers are illegal, arbitrary, invalid, inoperative; unenforceable, and not in accordance with law ; (f) Re-election of the defendant No. 1 in accordance with the articles of the Institute ; (g) Receiver-cum-Administrator; (h) Injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from holding the Annual General Meeting fixed on 20th January 1978 and declaring or publishing the result of election of the Council of Members of the defendant No. 1 for the years 1977-78, 1978 79 and 1979-80. On the application of the plaintiff-opposite party No. I, the learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from publishing the results of the election held at the Annual General Meeting of the Institute dated 20th January, 1978. The defendant No. 1, the Institute and also the defendant-opposite party No. 3 had filed an application before the learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, praying for the rejection of the plaint and for vacating the above interim order. They pleaded that the instant suit comes within the purview of Item No. 10 (ii) of the 1st Schedule of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 and, therefore, the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the said suit. The Institute claimed that it was a company incorporated under the Companies Act.
(2.) The learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta by his order No. 9 dated 16th February, 1978 rejected the aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge of the court below observed that it would be very difficult at the present stage to call the defendant No. I, the Institute, a company within the literal meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 or under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The learned Judge of the Court below further observed that moreover the plaint of the suit showed that the suit had been brought for declaration that the appointment of one of the defendants as the Convener of the Board of Scrutineers was invalid, illegal and that the seeking of the election by the defendants 3,5 and 6 was also illegal and invalid. Such prayers cannot be strictly aid legally said.to relate to or arise out of the constitution, incorporation, management and winding up of the defendant No. 1. Therefore, the learned Judge of the Court below while over-ruling the defendants objection to the jurisdiction of the said court entertaining the suit has at the same time left the said point open to be thrashed out again at the time of the final hearing.
(3.) The defendant No. 1, the Institute, and some other defendant's obtained this Rule against the above order dated 16th February, 1978 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Calcutta City Civil Court. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the aforesaid stilt brought by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 relates to and arises out of the management of a Corporation within the meaning of Entry No. 10 (ii) of the 1st. Schedule of the City Civil Court Act, 1953. Therefore, under sub section (4) of Section 5 of the said Act, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Mr. De, learned advocate for the opposite party No. I, on the other hand, has submitted that the Institute, the defendant No. 1 in the suit, is not a Corporation and the suit does not relate to or arise out of the management of a Corporation. The opposite party no. 1 has instituted the suit for enforcement of his individual rights. The suit has been valued at Rs. 100/-. Therefore, it is the City Civil Court and not the High Court at Calcutta which has jurisdiction to try the suit.;