V.K.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that the petitioner has moved an application for allotment of 12,000 shares of Rajasthan Tubes . A sum of Rs. 60,000 was paid along with the application submitted through the cheque. The said application was received by the State Bank of India. Beetal Finance and Computer Services Pvt. Ltd. were acting as Registrars to the issue. The application of the petitioner was considered for 1,200 shares instead of 12,000 shares and the cheque of Rs. 60,000 was encashed but it was considered by the respondent that only a sum of Rs. 6,000 had been paid.
(2.) A complaint was filed by the petitioner before the consumer forum. The consumer forum, vide its order dated July 1, 1995, held that in view of the decision given by the apex court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das [1994] 81 Comp Cas 318, the petitioner does not fall within the category of consumer and as such the complaint is not maintainable. Now, this petition under Section 10 of the Companies Act has been filed. Section 10 of the companies Act provides for the jurisdiction of the High Court and it is mentioned that the court having jurisdiction under this Act shall be - -(a) the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate, except to the extent to which jurisdiction has been conferred on any District Court or District Courts subordinate to that High Court in pursuance of Sub -section (2). Under Section 2(11), the court has been defined to mean (a) with respect to any matter relating to a company (other than any offence against this Act), the court having jurisdiction under this Act with respect to that matter relating to that company, as provided in Section 10(b) with respect to any offence against this Act, the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class or, as the case may be, a Presidency Magistrate, having jurisdiction to try such offence.
(3.) IT may be observed that under the Companies Act, the action could be taken by the company court, Company Law Board, Registrar of Companies, Central Government or the criminal court having jurisdiction. The Act and the Rules framed thereunder have provided different forums for redressal of the dispute. In the present case, the dispute is alleged of sections 61, 63, 73(2B).;