Holding

Section 9A of the Special Court Act treats the Company Law Board as a "court" and therefore divests it of jurisdiction over pending applications, which stand transferred to the Special Court.

Summary

Canara Bank appealed a decision of the Company Law Board (CLB) that had refused to register bonds purchased from Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. The CLB had been hearing the bank's application under Section 111 of the Companies Act when the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Ordinance, 1994 introduced Section 9A, which transfers to the Special Court all civil matters arising out of securities transactions involving a notified person. The key issue was whether the CLB qualified as a "court" within the meaning of Section 9A and thus lost jurisdiction over the pending application. The Supreme Court held that the word "court" must be read broadly to include tribunals exercising judicial functions, such as the CLB, and that Section 9A(2) therefore transfers the application to the Special Court. Consequently, the CLB’s order was set aside and the matter was transferred to the Special Court.

Issues considered

Whether the Company Law Board is a "court" within the meaning of Section 9A of the Special Court Act.
Whether applications filed under Section 111 of the Companies Act before the CLB are covered by the transfer provision of Section 9A(2).
Whether the Special Court has exclusive jurisdiction over civil claims arising out of securities transactions involving a notified person.
Interpretation of the term "court" in the context of the Special Court Act.

Legislation cited

Arbitration Act, 1940
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Companies Act, 1956s. 10, s. 111, s. 155, s. 2(11), s. 2(14)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 123, s. 124
Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992s. 10, s. 13, s. 15, s. 3(2), s. 3(3), s. 3(4), s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 7, s. 9, s. 9A, s. 9B

Subjects

securitiesspecial courtcompany law boardjurisdictiontransfer of proceedingsSection 9ASection 111notified personcivil jurisdiction

Judgment

A CANARA BANK
v.
NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

MARCH 6, 1995

B [J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities)
Act, 1992-Section 9A-Whether Company Law Board a Court-Whether it
is divested of the jurisdiction powers and authority to entertain matters .or
C claims arising out of transactions in securities entered into between the stated
dates in which a notified person is involved-Whether by reason of Sub-section
(2) claims or matters pending"before it on the commencement of the Amend-
ment Ordinance stand transfen-ed to the Special Court-Yes.

Companies Act, 1956 : 'Court' meaning of-Whether Company Law
D Board is a Court.
Wordr & Phrases: 'Court'-Meaning of in the context of sections 111 &
155 of Companies Act, 1956.
I
I
The Canara Bank had made an application before the Company Law
E Board (CLB) under section 111 of Comp,anies Act seeking relief against
the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, which had refused to register
in its books bonds of the Noel.ear Power Corporation purchased by Canara
Bank. The Standard Chartered Bank had also claimed ownership of the
said bonds. Canara Bank alleged that it had acquired the said bonds from
F the Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd, through a broker, a person
notified under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Special Court Act. The
application of the Canara Bank was pending disposal before C.L.B. when,
on 25th January, the Special Court Act was amended by the Special Court
(Trial of offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendmet Or-
dinance, 1994 and Section 9-A was introduced. Tite Canara Bank and the
G Nuclear Power Corporation took the stand that the application of Canara
Bank stood transferred to the Special Court Act; the Standard Chartered
Bank contended that the CLB retained the jurisdiction to deal with the
application. The CLB held that it was not a court within the meaning of
the Companies Act nor was it a civil court. Its jurisdiction was, therefore_,
H ''unaffected by the provisions of Section 9-A(2) of the Special Court AcL
482
.. \ i'
--'i
\
. CANARA BANK v. NUCLEARPO\VERCORPN. 483

Aggrieved by the' order or CLB Canara Bank prererred the present appeal. A

Allowing the appeal, this Court \

HELD: 1.1. Sub-secito~· cll ~r s~ction 9A or the'special Co~rt Act
mandates tr.insrer to the Special Court or 'evecy suit, claim.or othe; legal
proceedings'. (492-B) · · · ··· ' :. ... . . · · .. B
. - • . i '''
· 1.2. The word "court" must be read in the context in which it ls used
in a statute. It is permissible given the conteXt, to read it as comprehending
.the courts of civil judicature and courts or tribunais exercising curial or
judicial powers. In the context In which the word "court" Is ~ed In 'section
9A of the Special Court Act, it Is intended to encompass all curial or · C
judicial bodies \1-hich 'have the jurisdiction to' decide in~ttei:-s or claims; .
int~r iilia, arising ou't of transactions .In seeuritie's -~ntered Into between the
sbted dates in which a P.rson notified hi lnvolved.'(506-F] > . . : .- . :
- ' ' • • $ ~. •' '' ~ • \.: ,·, f ·_ !

.. 1.3. The judgine~t In Mis.' Harindar Budar Mills LuL.v. S~yarn Swidar. , D
Jhunjhunwala and· Ors., (1962) 2 SCR 339 Is determinative In deciding .
' . ·- - - - - .
whether a tribunal Is subject to the jurisdictions under A.136 and 227, but
a
. It does not hold that a "court• Is only court of Civil judleature In the
hierarchy of courts: .. :. .• ·:· --:· ...... , ...
. ''~ ·- .. ;' ' ,_ '~ '
Kihoto Holiohan v. Zachillhu and Ors, (1992) Suppl. 2 S.C.C. 651, E
referred to. .. . .
-- ' '' . ~ ---~

2. The occasion for.enacting the Special Court Act most not be lost
sight ot The, Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill to replac'e the
Amendment Ordinance has been quoted. Joint Parliamentary Committee
was constituted to Investigate what the Statement of Objects and Reasons .F
called "the large scale irregularities and malpractices which were noticed
In the Securities transactions of banks". (506-Gl ., ... · · ;- ·
' : •. • . i. •- • ~. '" '
3. Having
.
regard to the 1'J!ormity
. .~
or the "scam"
' .
. . and -·its. vast ramifica-. '

lions, Parliament thought It was·necessary that all the matters or claims
arising out of transaction in securities entered Into between th~· stated · G
dates In which a 'person notified was Involved should be brouiibt before .
and tried by the same forum. That forum had been invested with the
jurisdiction to try persons accused of offences relating to transactions 'in
securities entered Into between the stated dates. It was also required to
gh·e directions to the Custodian In regard to property belougingto persons :H
/ ' ' , I
~j-,..'_,,<·'>o; \\; -\ (' ;'.\",
/ .... -
.... . .. . . _-: . /,\ » ,_\_
-----\

'·'1: 484 ._·, '\" SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.c.R.
'-......
A notified which stood attached under the provisions ~r th; Special Courts
AcL (508·B·C)
' \

4. It is proper to attribu~ to the word "Court" in Section 9A(l) or
the Special Cmirt Act, not" the 'narrower meaning or a' court or civil
judicature which 'is 'a part ~r the ordinary hierarchy' or courts but the
B broader meaning or a curial' body, a body acting judicially to deal with
matters and claims arising out or transactions in securities entered into
betwttn the ~tate'd d3tes In which a pers~n notified Is involved. An. inter-
pretation that ,suppresses the-Dilschid and advances the 'remedy iniist be ~
given. (508-D-E) . - .. . , . . .; .

.C . . ' ' 5. Under section 111 of the Companies Act as amended with elfect
rroin 31st May, 1991, theCLB perrorms the rwict1ons that were theretorore
P'erroniied by courts
\ .
or civil
-·
judicature
. . 155. It-·b.empowered
under Section
; .. - ' .... . '

to make orders directing-rectification or the company's register;·as to
damages, costs and incidental and consequential orders. It may decide any
D question relating t.; the title or any person who is a party be£ore it tO have .
' bl! _name entered upon the company's register and any question which it
b necessary or expedient to decide. It may make interim orders. Failure
to' comply with any ~rder visits the company with a line.. In regi.rd to an
these matter It has exclusive jurisdiction (except under the provblom or
E Special Court Act); In exercise or its £unction under section 111 the CLB
"acts judicially. Its orders are appealable. The CLB, rurtber, b a permanent
body constituted under a statute. It b, thererore a court, particularly for
the purposes or Section 9A of the Special Court Act. (510-E-G).
" ,.,; ·,,.-:. ,.-_, ·. :' ,-._ -_

6. A share-holder whose name the company has rerused to enter in
F Its register might be put to some difficulty in deciding 1'hether be should
approach the Special Court or the CLB, but that Is no reason to interpret -~
the provision.! or Section 9A lo a manner that would ddeat Its iotendement
and adversely affect the public interest. In any event the time takm in
approaching the CLB in a mati.,r that should have been filed before the
G Special Court would not be, or any comequence £or there Is no time limit
within which ihe' Speci;.i CoUrt has to be approached. (510-H, 511-A]
,.~-"·-,: '-;~ ·--.· •' ... · .. ~ .- i . '-'-; ---:;- .· _:;
· " · ~ 7. Section 3 (2) or the Special Court Act empowers the Custodian, on
being 'satisfied on inroJ;matlon rei:eived, that any person has been involved
in· any olfence· relating to transactions in secnritles entered Into between
.H the stated dates to notify the name or sncb person in the omcial GuaUe.
f
CANARA BANK v. NUCLEAR POWER CORPN. 485

On such notification, by reason of Section 3(3), the property of the person A
> notified stands attached. That property, by reason of Section 3(4), is to be
dealt with by the Custodian in such manner as the Special Court may
direct. Section 4 states that if the Custodian is satisfied after such inquiry
as he may think fit that any contract or agreement entered into at any time
between the stated dates in relation to the property of a person notified B
has been entered into fraudulently or to defeat the provisions of the Special
Court Act, he may cancel such contract or agreement whereupon such
property stands attached. The scope, therefore, of Section 4 is limited. It
applies only in regard to property that belong to a person notified. Section
9A(l) is much wider and it invests the Special Court with jurisdiction to
entertain matters or claims arising out of transactions in securities C
entered into between the stated dates in which a person notified is involved
not only as a party but also as a broker, intermediary or in any other
manner. (511-D-G)

8. The words "appeal" and 'application, in the context of the
provisions of Section 111 have, therefore, the same meaning and it is, D
plainly, an original application that is made. The shareholder does not
resort to a superior court to review the decisions of an inferior court or
tribuaal. The fact, therefore, that Section 9A(2) of the Special Court Act
speaks of the transfer of "every suit, claim or other legal proceeding (other
than an appeal) "does not exclud~ the application or 'appeal' made under E
the provisions of Section 111 of Companies Act from the purview of Section
9 A(l) of the Special Court Act. (512-B)

9. The application of Canara Bank pending before the CLB shall
stand transferred to the Special Court constituted under the provisions of
the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in F
Securities) Act, 1992. (512-D)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3206 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.94 of the Company Law G
Board Northern Region, New Delhi in Com.P.No. 5/111 of 1992 CLB
(NR).

Barish N. Salve, Ms. Sunita Dutt and Ms. Meenakshi Grover for the
Appellant. H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R.

A J.C. Seth and Ms. Rachana Joshi Issar for the Respondent No. 1.

F.S. Nariman, M. H. Baig, Ms. Ritu Bhalla, Ms. Monika Sharma and
S.S. Shroff for the Respondent No. 4.

The Jud~ent of the Court was delivered by
B
BHARUCHA, J. Leave granted.

This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Company Law
C · Board which raises an interesting question as to the exclusive jurisdiction
· of the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Special Court
(Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. 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
D affected by the Special Court Act.

The question arose in these circumstances. The Canara Bank (the
appellant) had made an application before the CLB under Section 111 of
the Companies Act seeking relief against the Nuclear Power Corporation
of India Ltd. (the first respondent), which had refused to register in its
E books in the name of the Canara Bank bonds of the Nuclear Power
Corporation purchased by the Canara Bank. The Standard Chartered Bank
(the fourth respondent) had also claimed ownership of the said bonds. The
Canara Bank alleged that it had acquired the said bonds from the Andhra
Bank Financial Services Ltd. (the third respondent) through one Hiten P.
p Dalal, (the second respondent) who had acted as a broker. Hiten P. Dalal
'\ ...
is a person notified under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Special
Court Act and was, as the application of the Canara Bank before the CLB
showed, involved as a broker in the transaction relating to the said bonds.
The application of the Canara Bank was pending disposal before the CLB
when, on 25th January, 1994, the Special Court Act was amended by the
G Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities)
Amendment Ordinance, 1994, and Section 9-A was introduced. The
Canara Bank and the Nuclear Power Corporation took the stand that the
application of the Canara Bank stood transferred to the Special Court by
virtue of the provisions of Section 9-A(2) of the Special Court Act. The
H Standard Chartered Bank (Stanchart) contended that the CLB retained the
i

CANARA BANK v. NUCLEARPOWERCORPN.(BHARUCHA,J.) 487

jurisdiction to deal with the application. The CLB held that it was not a A
court within the meaning of the Companies Act nor was it a civil court. Its
jurisdiction was, therefore, unaffected by the provisions of Section 9-A(2)
of the Special Court Act.

The Special Court Act B

The Special Court Act was enacted to provide for the establishment
of a special court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in
securities and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Securities
were defined in Section 2(c) to include shares, scrips, stocks, bonds, C
debentures, debenture stock, units and olher marketable securities of a like
nature, Government securities and rights or interests in securities. _Section
3(1) provided for the appointment by the Central Government of a Cus-
todian. By reason of Section 3, the Custodian was empowered, on being
satisfied on information received that any person had been involved in any D
offence relating to transactions in securities after 1st April, 1991, and
before 6th June, 1992 (the stated dates), to notify the name of such person
in the Official Gazette. On and from the date of such notification, by reason
of Section 3(3), property, movable and immovable, belonging to the person
notified stood attached and, by reason of Section 3(4), could be dealt with
by the Custodian in such manner as the Special Court directed. Section E
4(1) empowered the Custodian, if he was satisfied, after such inquiry as he
thought fit, that any contract or agreement entered into at any time
between the stated dates in relation to any property of a person notified
had been entered into fraudulently or to defeat the provisions of the
Special Court Act, to cancel such contract or agreement and, on such F
cancellation, such property stood attached. Such cancellation was required
to be preceded by a reasonable opportunity to the parties to the contract
or agreement to be heard. Any p~rson aggrieved by a notification under
Section 3(2) or Section 4(1) was entitled to file a petition of objection
before the Special Court. The Special Court was established by Section 5.
It was to consist of a sitting Judge. of the High Court nominated by the G
Chief justice of the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the Special Court was situated, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice
of India. Section 6 empowered the Special Court to take cognizance of and
try such cases as were instituted before it or transferred to it. Section 7
dealt with the jurisdiction of the Special Court and it read thus: H
)

488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A "7. Jurisdiction of Special Court - Notwithstanding anything con-
tained in any other law, any prosecution in respect of any offence
referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3 shall be instituted only
in the Special Court and any prosecution in respect of such offence
pending in any court shall stand transferred to the Special Court."

B Section 9 made provision for the procedures and powers of the Special
Court. It stated that the Special Court should in the trial of cases before it
follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for
the trial of warrant cases before a Magistrate. It was also provided that the
Special Court would be deemed to be a Court of Session, having all the
C powers of such a court. Section 10 provided that an appeal would lie from
any judgment, decree, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order,
of the Special Court to the Supreme Court, both on facts and on law. By
reason of Section 11(1), the Special Court could make such order as it
deemed fit directing the Custodian in the matter of disposal of property
under attachment. Section 11(2) set out the order in which the liabilities.
D of the persons notified had to be discharged. Section 13 stated that the
provisions of the Special Court Act .would have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other la"'. for the time · ·
being in force, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law, or
in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority. By reason
E of Section 15 the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions
in Securities) Ordinance, 1992, which preceded the Special Court Act, was
repealed.

The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in
Securities) Amendment Ordinance, 1994, was brought into effect on 25th
F January, 1994. The provision thereof which is most relevant for our purpose
is Section 9-A. It reads tlius:

"9A. Jurisdiction, powers, authority and procedure of Special
Court in civil matters - (1) On and from the commencement of the
Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in
G Securities) Amendment Ordinance, 1994, the Special Court shall
exercise all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exer-
cisable, immediately before such commencement, by any civil court
in relation to any matter or claim -

H (a) relating to any property standing attached under sub-sec-
CANARA BANK v. NUCIBARPOWERCORPN.(BHARUCHA,J.] 489

tion (3) of section 3: A
(b) arising out of transactions in securities entered into after
the 1st day of April, 1991 and on or before the 6th day of
June, 1992, in which a person notified under sub-section (2)
of section 3 is involved as a party, broker, intermediary or in
any other manner: B

(2) Every suit, claim or other legal proceedings (other than on

'
appeal) pending before any court immediately before the commen-
cement of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Trans-
actions in Securities) Amendment Ordinance, 1994, being a suit C
claim or proceeding, the cause of action whereon it is based is
such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such commen-
cement, within the jurisdiction of the Special Court under sub-sec-
tion (1), shall stand transferred on such commencement to the
Special Court and the Special Court may, on receipt of the records
of such suit, claim or other legal proceeding, proceed to deal with D
it, so far as may be, in the same manner as a suit, claim or legal
proceeding from the stage which was reached before such transfer
or from any earlier stage of de novo as the Special Court may deem
fit.
E
(3) On and from the commencement of the Special Court (Trial
of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment
Ordinance, 1994, no court other than the Special Court shall have
or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdi.ction power or authority in
relation to any matter 'or claim referred to in sub-section (1).
F
(4) While dealing with cases relating to any matter or claim under
this section, the Special Court shall not be bound by the procedure
laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but
shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, and subject to
the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Special Court G
shall have the power to regulate its own procedure.

(5) Without prejudice to the other powers conferred under this
Act, the Special Court shall have, for the purposes of discharging
its functions under this section, the same powers as are vested in
a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908}, H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, ·namely:

(a) summoning and enforcing .the attendance of any person
and examining him on oath:

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
B
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

c
(d) subject to the provisions of the sections 123 and 124 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requisitioning any public
. record or document or copy of such record or document
from any office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination or witnesses or
•
documents;

(f) reviewing its decisions;
D
(g) dismissing a case for default or deciding it a parte;

(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any case for default
or any order passed by it ex parte; and .

E (i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central
Government under sub~section (1) of section 14."

" The Amendment Ordinance also introduced Section 9B. It invested the
Special Court with the jurisdiction and powers of a court conferred under
the Arbitration Act, 1940, to. decide any question forming the subject
F matter of a reference relating to any matter or claim mentioned in Section
9A(1). Every suit or other proceeding (other than an appeal) in relation
to any matter or claim referred to in section 9A(l) pending before any
court and governed by the Arbitration Act stood transferred to the Special
Court on the date of commencement of the Amendment Ordinance.
G
An Act replaced the Amendment Ordinance. The Statement of
Objects and Reasons thereof said:

"Under the provisions of the Special Court (Trial of Offences
Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, a Special Court
H was set up at Bombay and a Custodian was appointed to deal with
CANARA BANK v. NUCLEAR POWER CORPN. [BHARUCHA,J.] an
the situation arising out of the large scale irregularities and A
· malpractices which were noticed in the securities transactions of
banks, to ensure the speedy trial of the offenders, to recover the
amounts involved and to attach the properties of the offenders with
a view to prevent diversion of such properties by the persons
responsible fol\ these offences.
B
2. During the course of the trial of these cases, the jurisdiction of
the Special Court, particularly in matters of civil claims, was being
challenged for want of specific provisions in the Act. The Special
Court, therefore, needed to be conferred with civil jurisdiction.
For the said purpose, the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating C
to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Ordinance, 1994, was
promulgated by the President on the 25th January, 1994...."

Analysis of Section 9A

By reason of sub-section (1) of Section 9-A on and from the date of D
commencement of the Amendment Ordinance the Special Court exercises
all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable by any civil
court in relation to any matter or claim (a) relating to any property standing
attached and (b) arising out of transactions in securities entered into
between the stated dates in which a notified person was in any manner
involved. By reason of sub-section (2) any suit, claim or other legal E
proceeding (other than an appeal) pending before any court immediately
before the commencement of the Amendment Ordinance, being a suit or
proceeding the. cause of action whereof was such that it would have, if it
had arisen after the commencement of the Amendment Ordinari.te, been
within the jurisdiction of the Special Court, stands transferred to the F
Special Court. By reason of sub-section (3), on and from the· commence-
ment of the Amendment Ordinance no court other than the Special Court
may exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to any matter
or claim referred to in sub-section (1).

Sub-section (1) of Section 9A empowers the Special Court to exer- G
cise the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by a civil court. It so
empowers the Special Court in relation to any matter or claim, inter alia,
that arises out of transactions in securities entered into between the stated
dates in which a notified person is involved. The words 'civil court' are used
in the context of the jurisdiction, powers and authority that the Special H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A Court may exercise. The Special Court is empowered to exercise such
jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters or claims therein
specified. These matters or claims include those arising out of transactions
in securities entered into between the stated dates in which a ·notified
person is involved. Sub-section (2) of Section 9A deals with the transfer of
B certain suits, claims or other legal proceedings (other than an appeal) to
the Special Court. Every suit, claim or other legal proceeding pending
before any court the cause of action whereof is such that, had it arisen after
the commencement of the Amendment Ordinance, the suit, claim or other
legal proceeding would have had to be filed before the Special Court,
stands transferred to the Special Court. Every suit, claim or other legal
C proceeding pending before any court the cause of action whereof arises
out of transactions in securities entered into between the stated dates in
which a notified person is involved would, therefore, if it is pending before
any court on the date on which the Amendment Ordinance came into
force, stand transferred to the Special Court. By reason of sub-section (3)
D of Section 9A, on and after the commencement of the Amendment Or-
dinance, no court other than the Special Court may exercise any jurisdic-
tion, powers or authority in relation to any matter or claim referred to in
sub-section (1), that is to say, in relation to any matter or claim, inter alia,
arising out of transactions in securities entered into between the stated
dates in which a notified person is involved.
E
A "court" other than the Special Court is debarred, by reason of
sub-section (3) of Section 9A, from exercising any jurisdiction, powers or
authority, after the commencement of the Amendment Ordinance, in rela-
tion to any matter or claim arising out of transactions in securities entered
F into between the stated dates .in which a notified person is involved.
Sub-section (2) of Section 9A also speaks of a 'court'; a proceeding before
a court, the cause of action of which arises out of a transaction in securities
entered into between the stated dates in which a notified person is involved,
stands transferred to the Special Court. The question, in these circumstan-
ces, is whether the use of the words 'civil court' in sub-section (1) excludes
G the application of Section 9-A to the CLB?

Sub-section (1) of Section 9-A is divisible into two parts. By the first
part, the Special Court is empowered to exercise, on and from the com-
mencement of the Amendment Ordinance, all such jurisdiction, po_wers
H and authority as were exercisable before such commencement by any ciV:il
i
CANARA BANK v. NUCLEARPOWERCORPN.[BHARUCHA,J.] 493

court. By the second part, the Special Court is empowered to exercise such A
jurisdiction, powers or authority in regard to the matters or claims therein
specified, which include matters or claims arising out of transactions in
securities entered into between the stated dates in which a notified person
is involved. So read, the Special Court has the jurisdiction, powers and
authority of a civil court to exercise the same in regard to matters or claims
arising out of transactions in securities entered into between the stated
B
dates in which a notified person is involved. Sub-section (1) of Section 9A,
therefore, invests the Special Court with the jurisdiction, powers and
authority necessary for the purposes of entertaining matters or claims of
the nature specified therein. Sub-section (2) provides for the transfer of
such matters or claims pending in any court to the Special Court on the c
commencement of the Amendment Ordinance. And sub-section (3) ex-
pressly debars any court other than the Special Court from exercising any
jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such matters or claims.

The question to pose, therefore, is: is the CLB a court..-lf it is, it is
divested of the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain matters or D
claims arising out of transactions in securities entered into between the
stated dates in which a notified person is involved, by reason of sub-section
, ...(3); and, by reason of sub-section (2), such matters or claims pending
before it on the commencement of the Amendment Ordinance stand
transferred to the Special Court. E

While on Section 9A, it must also be noted that sub-section (2)
thereof mandates transfer to the Special Court of "every suit, claim or other
legal proceedings (other than an appeal)" which is pending before any
court on the commencement of the Amendment Ordinance in which the
F
cause of action, inter alia, arises out of a transaction in securities entered
into between the stated dates in which a notified person is involved. It is,
therefore, the proceeding in the court of first instance that stands trans-
ferred. If the court of first instance has finally disposed of the proceeding
and its order thereon is the subject of an appeal, the appeal does not stand
transferred. G

Section 111 of the Companies Act.

Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, with effect from 31st May
1991, reads thus: H

r.
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R.

A "Power to refuse registration and appeal against refusal - (1) If a
company refuses, whether in pursuance of any power of the com-
pany under its articles or otherwise, to register the transfer of, or
the transmission by operation of law of the right to, any shares or
interest of a member in, or debentures of, the company, it shall,
within two months from the date on which the instrument of
B transfer, or the intimation of such transmission, as the case may
be, was delivered to the company, send notice of the refusal to the
,Jransferee and the transferor or to the person giving intimation of
.,~ch transmission, as the case may be, giving reasons for such
refusal.
c (2) The transferor or transferee, 01· the person who gave intimation
of the transmission by operation of law, as the case may be, may
~ppeal to the Company Law Board against any refusal of the
company to register the transfer or transmission, or against any
failure on its part .within the period referred to in sub-section (1),
D either to register the transfer or transmission or to send notice of
its refusal to register the same.

(3) An appeal under sub-section (2) shall be made within two
months of the receipt of the notice of such refusal or, where no
m1tice has been sent by the company, within four months from the
E
date on which the instrument of transfer, or the intimation of
transmission, as the case may be, was delivered to the company.

(4) If -

F (a) the name of any person -

(i) is without sufficient· cause, entered in the register of
·-~
members of a company, or

(ii) after having been entered in the register, is, without
G sufficient cause, omitted therefrom; or

(b) default is made, or unnecessary delay takes place, in entering
in the register the fact of any person having become, or ceased
to be, a member [including a refusal under sub-section (1))

H the person aggrieved, or any member of the company, or the
I

CANARA BANK v. NUCLEAR POWER CORPN. [BHARUCHA,J.] 495

company, may apply to the Company Law Board for rectification A
of the register.

(5) The Company Law Board, while dealing with an appeal
preferred under sub-section (2) or an application made under sub-
section (4) may, after hearing the parties, either dismiss the appeal
or reject the application, or by order - B
(a) direct that the transfer or transmission shall be registered by
the company and the company shall comply with such order
within ten days of the receipt of the order; or

(b) direct rectification of t~e register and also direct the company C
to pay· damages, if any, sustained by any party aggrieved.

(6) The Company Law Board, while acting under sub-section (5),
may, at its discretion, make -

(a) such interim orders, including any orders as to injunction or D
stay, as it may deem fit· and just;

(b) such orders as to costs as it thinks fit; and

(c) incidental or consequential orders regarding payment of E
dividend or the allotment of bonus or rights shares.

(7) On any application under this section, the Company Law
Board -

(a) may decide any question relating to the title of any person F
who is a party to the application to have his name entered in,
or omitted from, the register;

(b) generally, may decide any question which it is necessary or
expedient to decide in connection with the application for
rectification. G

(8) The provisions of sub-sections (4) to (7) shall apply in relation
to the rectification of the register of debenture - holders as they
apply in relation to the rectification of the register of members.

(9) If default is made in giving effect to the orders of the Company H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A Law Board under this section, the company and every officer of
the company who is in default shall be punishable with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees and with a further fine which
may extend to one hundred rupees for every day after the first day
after which the default continues.

B (10) Every appeal or application to the Company Law Board under
sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) shall be made by a petition in
writing and shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.

(11) In the case of a private company which is not a subsidiary of
c a public company, where the right to any shares or interest of a
member in, or debentures of, the company is transmitted by a sale
thereof held by a Court or other public authority, the provisions
of sub-sections (4) to (7) shall apply as if the company were a
public company:

D Provided that the Company Law Board may in lieu of an order
under sub-section (5), pass an order directing the company to \
register the transmission of the right unless any member or mem-
bers of the company specified in the order acquire the right
aforesaid within such time as may be allowed for the purpose by
the order, on payment to the purchaser of the price paid by him
""'
E
therefor or such other sum as the Company Law Board may
determine to be a reasonable compensation for the right in all the
circumstances of the case.

(12) If default is made in complying with any of the provisions of
F this section, the company and every officer of the company who is
in default, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty
rupees for every day during which the default continues.

(13) Nothing in this section and section 108, 109 or 110 shall
prejudice any power of a private company under its articles to
G inforce the restrictions contained therein against the right to trans-
fer the shares of such company.

Section 111, as set out above, was incorporated in the Companies
Act subsequent to the report of a committee appointed to consider amend-
H ments to the Companies Act. The Sachar Committee, as it came to be
CANARA BANK v. NUCLEAR POWER CORPN. [BHARUCHA, J.] 497

called, said: A

"under the existing law, there are two remedies open to an ag-
grieved person - to file an appeal under section 111, or to apply
to the Court for rectifica.tion of the share register under section
155. We think that these two remedies should now be assimilated
and provision be made (at one place) for a person aggrieved B
(including any person aggrieved by a refusal of the Board of
Directors to register a transfer or transmission of shares) to apply
to the Company Law Board - as proposed to be constituted - for
rectification of the share register on any of the grounds mentioned
in sub-clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (1) of the present section C
155. '

Our proposals are -

Accordingly, we would recommend as follows :
D
Sections 111 and 155 should be assimilated into a single statutory
provision."

Section 155, as it read before 31st May, 1991, entitled a person
aggrieved or any member of a company or a company to apply to the court
for rectification of the company's register of members if the name of any E
person was, without sufficient cause, entered in it or, after having been
entered in it, was, without sufficient cause, omitted therefrom or default
was made or unnecessary delay took place in entering on it the fact of any
person having become, or ceased to be, a member. The court was entitled
to order rectification of the register and to direct the company to pay the F
damages, if any, sustained by a partly aggrieved. The court was entitled to
decide any question relating .to the title of any person who was a party to
the application to have his name entered in or omitted form the register.
An appeal from the order of the court was provided for.

It will be seen that the CLB now exercises the powers that were G
exercisable by the court under Section 155. It is entitled to direct rectifica-
tion of the register and the payment of damages by the company. It is
entitled to decide any question relating to the title of any person who is a
party to the application to have his name entered in or omitted form the
register and to decide any question which it is necessary or expedient to H
\
\\
I

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A decide in this connection. An appeal to the High Court against any decision
or order of the CLB on a question of law is available to any person
aggrieved, thereby under the provisions of Section lOF.

Whereas sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 111 term the' pleading
that the person aggrieved has to file before the CLB an 'appeal', sub-sec-
B tion (4) requires the person aggrieved to apply, sub-section (5) speaks of
it as an 'appeal' or an 'application', sub-section (7) as an 'application' and
sub-section (10) as an "appeal or application", which shall be made "by a
petition in writing". The words "appeal' and "application" in the context of
'the provisions of Section 111 have the same meaning. Plainly, it is an
C application that has to be made.
The powers under Section 155 were exercised by a civil court.
Reference may be made to the definition of "court" in the Companies Act.
Section 2(11) defines "court" to mean, with respect to any matter relatmg
to a company, other than any offence against the Companies Act, the court
D having jurisdiction under the Companies Act with respect to that matter
relating to that company. "District Court" is also defined. The definition
thereof in Section 2(14) is that it is the principal civil court of original
jurisdiction in a district, but does not include a High Court in the exercise
of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Section 10 deals with the jurisdic-
E tion of courts and it reads thus:

"Jurisdiction of Courts - (1) The Court having jurisdiction under
this Act shall be -

(a) the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at ~.
F 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); and

(b) where jurisdiction has been so conferred, the District Court
G in regard to matters falling within the scope of the jurisQiction
conferred, in respect of companies having their registered
offices in the district.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official
·H Gazette and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions
CANARA BANK v. NUCIBAR POWER CORPN. [BHARUCHA, J.] 499

as it thinks fit empower any District Court to exercise all or any A
of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act upon the Court, not being
the jurisdiction conferred -

(a) in respect of companies generally, by sections 237, 391, 394,
395 and 397 to 407, both inclusive;
B
(b) in respect of companies with a paid-up share capital of not
less than one lakh of rupees by Part VII (sections 425 to 560)
and the other provisions of this Act relating to the winding
up of companies.

(3) For the purposes of jurisdiction to wind-up companies, the
c
expression "registered office" means the place which has longest
been the registered office of the company during the six months
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for winding
up.
D
The provisions of Section 10-E of the Companies Act, as they were
amended with effect from 31st May, 1991, read thus:

"S.10 E. Constitution of Board of Company Law Administration -
(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of the Companies E
(Amendment) Act, 1988, the Central Government shall, by
notification in the Official Gazette constitute a Board to be called
the Board of Company Law Administration.

,,./ (lA) The Company Law Board shall exercise and discharge such
powers and functions as may be conferred on it, by or under this F
Act or any other law, and shall also exercise and discharge such
other powers and functions of the Central Government under this
Act or any other law as may be conferred on it by the Central
Gove~nment, by notification in the Official Gazette under the
provisions of this Act or that other law.
G
~, Reference to the provisions of Section lOF has already been made.

It is to be noted that the CLB performs functions which are ad-
ministrative, as under Sections 224 and 269, and curial, as under Section
m H
\
!

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A Contentions.

Mr. Salve, learned counsel for the Canara Bank, who was supported
by Mr. J.C. Seth, learned counsel for th~ Nuclear Power Corporation,
submitted that Section 9-A(l) conferred upon the Special Court the juris-
diction of a civil court "in the wider sense", as including courts exercising
B powers conferred upon civil courts. The word 'civil' was used in Section
9A(l) to contrast the provisions thereof with those of Section 9(2),
- ....
whereunder the Special Court was given all the powers of a Court of
Session. The jurisdiction of the Special Court, until the coming into force
of the Amendment Ordinance, under sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Special
C Court Act was in respect of criminal matters and the powers of a Court of
Session had, therefore, been conferred upon it. It was found necessary to
confer upon the Special Court the powers of a civil court to deal with the
civil matters set out in section 9-A(l). Such an interpretation of Section 9A
was in accord with the legislative intent, which was to exclude from the
D jurisdiction of all courts save the Special Court the matters described in
Section 9-A(l). A clear indication of this was provided by Section 9-B by
reason of which even matters in court relating to arbitration proceedings
concerning causes of action arising out of the matters specified in section
9-A(l) were confined to the Special Court. The legislative intent was to
place all cases arising out of such causes of action before the Special Court
E so that a court having knowledge of all the cases would decide all matters
provided for in the Special Court Act. A purposive interpretation ought,
therefore, to be placed upon the provisions of Section 9-A. Emphasis was
laid upon the fact that, by reason of Section 111(7) of the Companies Act,
the CLB had the power to decide the title of the securities in question
F before it; the jurisdiction in this behalf conflicted with the jurisdiction
exclusively conferred upon the Special Court by Section 9-A. ""·
Mr. Nariman, learned counsel for Stanchart, submitted that the
relevant question was whether the CLB was a 'civil court'. In his submission
it was not. Mr. Nariman drew attention to the provisions of Section 13 of
G the Special Court Act, which stated that the provisions of the Special Court
Act would have effect notwithstanding anything contained, inter alia, "in
any decree or order of-any court, tribunal or other authority'', and em-
phasised the distinction made by Parliament between court, trib~nal and
other authority. The CLB was not intended to be covered by the provisions
H of Section 9-A(l), for those provisions did not exclude the jurisdiction of
CANARA BANK v. NUCLEAR POWER CORPN. [BHARUCHA,J.) 501

a tribunal or authority but only of a court. Secondly, the jurisdiction of the A
Special Court was in regard to matters arising out of transactions in
securities entered into between the stated dates in which a person notified
was involved as a broker, intermediary or in any other manner. It would
be very difficult for an intending litigant to know whether a person notified
had been involved in a transaction relating to securities which he had B
purchased and which were not being registered in his name, as a broker
or intermediary or in any other manner at any time between the stated
dates. It was, therefore. inappropriate to hold that such a litigant was
bound to take recourse to the law before the Special Court and not before
the CLB under Section 111 of the Companies. Act, particularly when, by
reason of the provisions of the latter provision, he had to move within a C
specified time limit. The interpretation suggested on behalf of the Canara
Bank was not really a purposive interpretation. Attention was drawn to the
provisions of Section 4 whereunder the Custodian was entitled, if satisfied
. after such inquiry as he thought fit that any contract or agreement entered
into between the stated dates in relation to any property of a person D
notified under Section 3(2) had been entered into fraudulently or to defeat
the provisions of the Special Court Act, to cancel such contract or agree-
ment whereupon such property stood attached. Even if the CLB under the
provisions of Section 111 of the Companies Act made any order with
regard to any securities, that order would stand at naught if an order
relating to the same securities was made under Section 4 of the Special E
Court Act by reason of the fact that, under Section 13 of the Special Court
Act, the Special Court Act had effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or other
authority. In any event, an appeal did not stand transferred to the Special
Court under the provisions of Section 9A(2), and what was filed before the F
CLB under Section 111 of the Companies Act was an appeal.

Discussion.

As to what are courts and tribunals, the leading decision is M/s.
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sumlar Jhunjhunwala and Ors., (1962) G
2 SCR 339, delivered by a Constitution Bench of this Court. A person who
~. held a large number of shares in the appellant company transferred two
blocks of the shares to his son and daughter-in-law. The transferees applied
to the company to register the transfers. Purporting to act under the
Articles of Association of the company, the directors resolved not to H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A register the transfers. The transferees preferred appeals under Section 111
of the Companies Act which, as the provision read at that time, lay to the
Central Gdvernment. The Central Government set aside the resolution of
the directors and directed the company to register the transfers, but it did
not give any reasons for its decision. The company obtained special leave
B to appeal under Article 136 of the constitution against the decision of the
Central Government. The transferees raised the objection that the Central
Government, exercising powers under Section 111, was not a tribunal
ex:ercising judicial functions and was, therefore, not subject to the appellate
jutisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136. J.C. Shah, J. spoke
for four of his brethren and held that a person aggrieved by the refusal to
C .register the transfer of shares had two remedies under the Companies Act,
namely, to apply to the court for rectification of the register under Section
155°bf.~:t~;,appeal against the resolution refusing to register the transfer
under S~ction 111. It was common ground that in the exercise of power
under Section 155, the court had to act judicially; to adjudicate upon the
D right exercised by the directors in the light of the powers conferred upon
them by the Articles of Association. The transferees, however, submitted
and were supported by the Union of India, that the authority of the Central
Government under Section 111 was, nevertheless, purely administrative. In
an appeal under Section 111 there was a lis or dispute between the
E contesting parties relating to their civil rights, and the Central Government
was invested with the power to determine that dispute according to law: it
had to consider and decide the proposal and the objections in the light of
the evidence and not on grounds of policy or expediency. The power to
order registration of transfers had to be exercised subject to limitations
F similar to those imposed upon the exercise of the power of the court in a
petition under Section 155. Those restrictions also applied to the exercise
of the power by the Central Government. The Central Government had to
decide whether, in exercising their power, the directors were not acting
oppressively, capriciously or corruptly or in some way mala fide. The
decision had manifestly to stand those objective tests. The exercise of such
G authority of rendering a decision upon the respective contentions by reason
of which the rights of the contesting parties were directly affected was
judicial. It was immaterial that the statute which conferred the power upon
the Central Government did not expressly set out the extent of the power;
the very nature of the jurisdiction required that it be exercised subject to
H
CANARA BANK v. NUCIEAR POWER CORPN. [BHARUCHA, J.] 503

the limitations which applied to the court under Section 155. Section 111 A
also provided that in the circumstances specified therein reasonable com-
pensation could be awarded in lieu of the shares. This compensation, which
was to be reasonable, had to be ascertained by the Central Government,
and reasonable compensation could not be ascertained except by the
application of some objective standards of what was just having regard to B
all the circumstances of the case. The authoiity of the Central Government
to entertain an appeal under Section 111 was an investiture of the judicial
, power of the State. As the dispute between the parties related to civil rights
and the Companies Act provided for a right of appeal and made detailed
provisions about hearing and disp<,.-;::J according to law, it was impossible C
to avoid the inference that a ciuty was in.!"osed upon the Central Govern-
ment in deciding the appeal to acr judicially. Hidayetullah, J. delivered a
separate but concurring judgment. He said that all tribunals were not
courts though all courts were tribunals. The word "courts" was used to
designate those tribunals which were set up in an organised State for the D
atlministration of justice. By administration of justice was meant the exer-
cise of the judicial power of the State to maintain and uphold rights and
to punish wrongs. Whenever there was an infringement of a right or an
injury, the courts were there to restore the 'vinculum juris'. When rights
were infringed or invaded, the aggrieved party could go and commence a E
'querela' before the ordinary civil courts. These courts were invested with
the judicial power of the State and their authority was derived from the
Constitution or some Act of legislature constituting them. Their number
was ordinarily fixed and they were ordinarily permanent and could try any
suit or cause within their jurisdiction. Their numbers might be increased
or decreased but they were almost always permanent and went under the F
compendious name of "Courts of Civil Judicature". There could be no
doubt that the Central Government did not come within this class. With
the growth of civilisation and the problems of modern life, a large number
of administrative tribunals had come into existence. These tribunals had
the authority of law to pronounce upon valuable rights. They acted in a G
judicial manner and even on evidence on oath, but they were not part of
the ordinary courts .of civil judicature. They shared the exercise of the
judicial power of the State but were brought into existence to implement
some administrative policy or to determine controversies arising out of
some administrative law. They were very similar to courts but were not H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A courts. When the Constitution spoke of "courts" in Articles 136, 227 and
228 and in Articles 233 to 237 and the Lists, it contemplated courts of civil
judicature but not tribunals other than such courts. This was the reason for
using both the expressions in Articles 136 and 227. By "courts" was meant
courts of civil judicature and by "tribunals" those bodies of men who were
B appointed to decide controversies ari~ing under certain special laws.
Among the powers of the State was included the power to decide such
controversies. This was undoubtedly one of the attributes of the State and
was aptly called the judicial power of the State. In the exercise of this
power, a clear division was noticeable. Broadly speaking, certain special
matters went before tribunals and the residue went before the ordinary
C courts of civil judicature. What distinguished them had never been success-
fully established. A court in the strict sense was a tribunal which was a part
of the ordinary hierarchy of courts of civil judicature maintained by the
State under its Constitution to exercise the judicial power of the State.
These courts performed all the judicial functions of the State except those
D that were excluded by law from their jurisdiction. The word "judicial" was
itself capable of two meanings. It might refer to the discharge of duties
exercisable by a judge or by justices in court or to administrative duties
which need not be performed in. court but in respect of which it was
necessary to bring to bear a judicial mind to determine what was fair and'
E just in respect of the matters under consideration. That an officer was
required to decide matters before him judicially in the second sense did
_ not make him a court or even a tribunal because that only established that
he was following a standard of conduct and was free from bias or interest.
Courts and tribunals acted judicially in both senses and to the term 'courts'
were included the ordinary and permanent tribunals and in the term
F 'tribunals' were included all others which were not so included. The matter
would have been simple if the Companies Act had designated a person or
persons, whether by name or by office, for the purpose of hearing an appeal
under Section 111. It would then have been clear that though such person
or persons were not 'courts' in the sense explained, they were clearly
G 'tribunals'. The Companies Act said that an appeal would lie to the Central
Government. The court was, therefore, faced with the question whether the
Central Government could be said to be a tribunal. The function that the
Central Government performed under the Companies Act and Rules was
to hear an appeal against the action of the directors. For that purpose a
H memorandum of appeal setting out the grounds had to be filed and the
CANARA BANK v. NUCLEAR POWER CORPN. [BHARUCHA,J.] 505

company, on notice, was required to make representations, if any, and so A
also the other side, and both sides were allowed to tender evidence to
support their representations. The Central Government by its order then
directed that the shares be registered or need not be registered. The
Central Government was also empowered to include in its orders directions
as to payment of costs or otherwise. The function of the Central Govern- B
ment was curial and not executive. There was provision for a hearing and
a decision on evidence, and that was indubitably a curial function: In its
/ functions the Central Government often reached decisions but all its
' . decisions could not be regarded as those of a tribunal. Resolutions of
Government might affect rights of parties and yet they might not be in the
-{ exercise of judicial power. Resolutions of Government might be amenable C
to writs under Articles 32 and 226 in appropriate cases but might not be
subject to a direct appeal under Article 136 as the decisions of a tribunal.
The position, however, changed when Government embarked upon curial
functions and proceeded to exercise judicial power and decide disputes. In
these circumstances, it was legitimate to regard the officer who dealt with D
the matter and even Government itself as a tribunal. The word "tribunal"
was a word of wide import and the words "court" and "tribunal" embraced
within them the exercise of judicial power in all its forms. The decision of
the Central Government thus fell within the powers of the Supreme Court
under Article 136.
E
In Kihoto Holiohan v. Zachillhu and Ors., (1992) Suppl. 2 S.CC. 651,
the observations in the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar
lhunjhunwala and Ors. (ibid) were quoted with approval and it was said
that where there was a lis - an affirmation by one party and denial by
another, the dispute involved the rights and obligations of the parties to it F
and the authority was called upon to decide it, there was an exercise of
judicial power. That authority was called a tribunal if it did not have all
the trappings of a court.

In the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar lhunjhun-
wala and Ors. this court was called upon to decide whether an order of the G
Central Government under Section 111 of the Companies Act, as it then
~, read, was appealable under Article 136 of the Constitution. Article 136
empowers this court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment
decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or
made by "any court or tribunal" in the territory of India. The connotation H
~I

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A of the words "court" and "tribunal" was determined in the judgment in the
context of Article 136. The argument was that the Cen~ral Government,
acting under Section 111 of the Companies Act, as it then read, was
exercising administrative authority. The court held that it was exercising
judicial authority. The majority judgment relied upon the provisions of
B Section 111 for so holding. Hidayetullah, J., concurring, held that all
tribunals were not courts though all courts were tribunals. The word
"courts" was used to designate the tribunals that a State established to
administer justice. They were fixed and permanent and could try any suit
or cause within their jurisdiction. They went under the compendious name
of "Courts of Civil Judicature". A large number of administrative tribunals
'"
C had come into existence with the growth of civilisation and the problems
of modern life. They acted in a judicial manner but they were not part of
the ordinary courts of civil judicature. What distinguished them had never
been successfully established. When the Constitution spoke of "courts" in
Article 136 and other Articles, it contemplated courts of civil judicature
D but not tribunals other than such courts. This was the reason both expres-
sions were used in Articles 136 and 226. The judgment is, therefore,
determinative in deciding whether a tribunal is subject to the jurisdiction
of this court under Article 136 or of the High Court under Article 227, but
it does not hold that a "court" is only a court of civil judicature in the
ordinary hierarchy of courts.
E
In our view, the word "court" must be read in the context in which it
is used in a statute. It is permissible, given the context, to read it as
comprehending the courts of civil judicature and courts or some tribunals
exercising curial, or judicial, powers. In the context in which the word
F "court" is used in section 9A of the Special Court Act, it is intended to
encompass all curial or judicial bodies which have the jurisdiction to decide
matters or claims, inter alia, arising out of transactions in securities entered
into between the stated dates in which a person notified ~ involved.

The occasion for enacting the Special Court Act must not be lost
G sight of. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill to replace the
Amendment Ordinance has already been quoted. A Joint Parliamentary
Committee was constituted to investigate what the Statement of Objects
and Reasons called "the large scale irregularities and malpractices which
were noticed in the securities transactions of banks". This is what the Joint
H Parliamentary Committee said in its report about the "scam":
CANARA BANK v. NUCLEARPOWERCORPN.[BHARUCHA,J.] 507

"The scam is basically a deliberate and criminal misuse of Public A
funds through various types of securities transactions with the aim
of illegally siphoning of funds of banks and PS Us to select brokers
for speculative returns. The latest irreqularities in the securities
and banking transactions, are manifestations of this chronic disor-
der since they involved not only the Banks but also the stock
market, financial institutions, PSU, the central bank of the country B
and even the Ministry of Finance, other economic ministries in
varying degrees. The most unfortunate aspect has been the emer-
gence of a culture of non-accountability which permeated all
sections of the Government and Banking system over the years.
The state of the country's system of governance, the persistence of C
non-adherence to rules, regulations and guidelines, the alarming
decay over time in the banking systems has been fully exposed.
These grave and numerous irregularities persisted for so long that
eventually it was not the observance of regulations but their breach
that came to be regarded and defended as "market practice".
Through all these years the ability of the concerned authorities to D
effectively address themselves to the problems has been tested and
found wanting. The consequence of these irregularities in securities
and banking transactions are both financial and moral. During the
period from July, 1991 to May, 1992 the most glaring proof of the
nexus between the irregularities in banks and the overheating o(
stock market which came to light is explained by the graphic E
representations of the BSE Index and the fact that there was a
sharp increase in securities transactions during the corresponding
period of the banks involved in serious irregularities related with
the scam. What is more apparent is the systematic and deliberate
abuse of the system by certain unscrupulous elements. It is abun-
dantly clear that the scam was the result of failure to check
F
irregularities in the banking system and also liberalisation without
adequate safeguards. There is also some evidence of collusion of
big industrial houses playing an important role. It is because of
these elements that the economy of the country had to suffer and
while some gained thousands of crores, millions of investors lost G
their savings. The criminality of the perpetrators of the scam
becomes all the more despicable as it was during this period that
' the country was passing through most trying times, economically
and financially. An observation that the Committee has been
constrained to make at a number of places in the succeeding
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A chapters is that for all these not many have yet been identified and
effectively punished."

Having regard to the enormity of the "scam" and its vast ramifications
Parliament thought it was necessary that all the matters or claims arising
out of transactions in securities entered into between the stated dates in
B which a person notified was involved should be brought before and tried
by the same forum. That forum had been invested with the jurisdiction to
try persons accused of offences relating to transactions in securities entered
into between the stated dates. It was also required to give directions to the
Custodian in regard to property belonging to persons notified which stood
C attached under the provisions of the Special Court Act. The object of
amending the Special Court Act to invest the Special Court with the power
and authority to decide civil claims arising out of transactions in securities
entered into between the stated dates in which a person notified was
involved has already been stated. In these circumstances, it is proper to
attribute to the word "court" in Section 9A(l) of the Special Court Act, not
D the narrower meaning of a court of civil judicature which is part of the
ordinary hierarchy of courts, but the broader meaning of a curial body, a
body acting judicially to deal with matter and clams arising out of transac-
tions in securities entered into between the stated dates in which a person
notified is involved. An interpretation that suppresses the mischief and
E advances the remedy must, plainly, be given.

In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition, Volume 10, paragraphs
701 and 702), this is observed :

F 701. Meaning of "court". Originally the term "court" meant, among
other things, the Sovereign's place. It has acquired the meaning of
the place where justice is administered and, further, has come to
mean the persons who exercise judicial functions under authority
derived either directly or indirectly from the sovereign. All
tribunals, however, are not courts, in the sense in which the term
G is here employed. Courts are tribunals which exercise jurisdiction
over persons by reason of the sanction of the law, and not merely
,-
/
by reason of voluntary submission to their jurisdiction. Thus, ar-
bitrators, committees of clubs and the like, although they may be
tribunals exercising judicial functions, are not "courts" in this sense
H of that term. On the other hand, a tribunal may be a court in the
CANARA BANK v. NUCLEARPOWERCORPN.[BHARUCHA,J.] 509

strict sense of the term even though the chief part of its duties is A
not judicial. Parliament is a court. Its duties are mainly delibera-
tive and legislative; the judicial duties are only part of its functions.
A coroner's court is a true court although its essential function is
investigation.

"702. UIJiat is a court in law. The question is whether the tribunal B
is a court, not whether it is a court of justice, for there are courts
, which are not courts of justice. In determining whether a tribunal
is a judicial body the facts that it has been appointed by a non-
judicial authority, that it has no power to administer an oath, that
the chairman has a casting vote, and that third parties have power C
to intervene are immaterial, especially if the statute setting it up
prescribes a penalty for making false statements; elements to be
considered are (I) the requirement for a public hearing, subject to
a power to exclude the public in a proper case, and (2) a provision
that a member of the tribunal shall not take part in any decision
in which he is personally interested, or unless he has been present D
throughout the proceedings.

A tribunal is not necessarily a court in the stdct sense of
exercising judicial power merely because (I) it gives a final
decision; (2) it hears witnesses on oath; (3) two or more contending E
parties appear before it between whom it has to decide; (4) it gives
decisions which affect the rights of subjects; (5) there is an appeal
to a court; and (6) it is a body to which a matter is referred by
another body.

Many bodies are not courts even though they have to decide F
questions, and in so doing have to act judicially, in the sense that
the proceedings must be conducted with fairness and impartiality.
Examples are the benchers of the Inns of Court when considering
the conduct of one of their members, the disciplinary committee
of the General Medical Council when considering questions af- G
fecting the conduct of a medican man, a trade union when exer-
cising disciplinary jurisdiction over its members ........"

These passages, from the earlier edition of Halshury, were cited by
· this court in Thakur fugal Kishore Sinha v. The Sitamarhi Central Co-opera-
tive Bank Ltd., [1967) 2 SCR 163. The question there was whether the H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act applied to a Registrar exercising
powers under Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies
Act. it was held that the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil and revenue
courts of the land was ousted in the case of disputes that fell under Section
48. A Registrar exercising powers under Section 48, therefore, discharged
B the duties which would otherwise have fallen on the ordinary civil and
revenue courts. He had not merely the trappings of a court but in many
respects he was given the same powers as were given to the ordinary civil
courts. of the land by the Code of Civil Procedure, including the power to
summon and examine witnesses on oath, the power to order inspection of
documents, to hear the parties after framing issues, to review his own order
·C and to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of courts mentioned in Section 151.
In adjudicating a dispute under Section 48 of the Bihar Act, the Registrar
was held to be, "to all intents and purposes a Court discharging the same
functions and duties in the same manner as a Court of law is expected to
do".
D Now, under Section 111 of the Companies Act as amended with
effect from 31st May, 1991, the CLB performs the functions that were
theretofore performed by courts of civil judicature under Section 155. It is
empowered to make orders directing rectification of the company's
register, as to damages, costs and incidental and consequential orders. It
E may decide any question relating to the title of any person who is a party
before it to have his name entered upon the company's register'; and any
question which it is necessary or expedient to decide. It may make interim
orders. Failure to comply with any order visits the company with a fine. In
regard to all these matters it has exclusive jurisdiction (except under the
F provisions of the Special Court Act, which is the issue before us). In
exercising its function under Section 111 the CLB must, and does, act
judicially. Its orders are appealable. The CLB, further, is a permanent body
constituted under a statute .. It is difficult to see how it can be said to be
anything other than a court, particularly for the purposes of Section 9A of
the. Special Court Act.
G
We shall assume that a shareholder whose name the company has
refused to enter in its register would be put to some difficulty in deciding
whether he should approach the Special Court or the CLB, but that is no
reason to interpret the provisions of Section 9A in a manner that would
H defeat its intendement and adversely affect the public interest. In any event,
CANARA BANK v. NUCLEARPOWERCORPN.[BHARUCHA,J.] 511

the time taken in approaching the CLB in a matter that should have been A
filed before the Special Court would not be of any consequence for there
is no time limit within which the Special Court' has to be approached: and
it is most unlikely that the Special Court would be approached unless the
shareholder were sure that his claim fell within Section 9A(l).

It will be remembered that Mr. Nariman had drawn attention to the B
provisions of Section 4 of the Special Court Act and argued that even if
, the CLB, under the provisions of Section 111 of the Companies Act, made
any order with regard to any securities, that order would stand at naught
if an order relating to the same securities was made under Section 4 of the
- --(
Special Court Act by reason of the fact that, under Section 13 of the Special C
Court Act, the order of the Special Court had effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any decree or order of any
court, tribunal or other authority. Section 3(2) of the Special Court Act
empowers the Custodian, on being satisfied on information received that
any person has been involved in any offence relating to transactions in D
securities entered into between the stated dates to notify the name of such
person in the Official Gazette. On such notification, by reason of Section
3(3), the property of the person notified stands attached. That property,
by reason of Section 3(4), is to be dealt with by the Custodian in such
manner as the Special Court may direct. Section 4 states that if the
Custodian is satisfied after such inquiry as he may think fit that any contract E
or agreement entered into at any time between the stated dates in relation
to the property of a person notified has been entered into fraudulently or
to defeat the provisions of the Special Court Act, he may cancel such
' contract or agreement whereupon such property stands attached. The
/ scope, therefore, of Section 4 is limited. It applies only in regard to
property that belongs to a person notified. Section 9A(l) is much wider
F
and it invests the Special Court with jurisdiction to entertain matters or
claims arising out of transactions in securities entered into between the
stated dates in which a person notified is involved not only as a party but
also as a broker, intermediary or in any other manner. The argument based
on Section 4 must, therefore, fail. G

As has been pointed out, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 111 of
the Companies Act term the pleading that the person aggrieved has to file
before the CLB an 'appeal', sub-section (4) requires the person aggrieved
to apply, sub-section (5) speaks of it as an 'appeal' or an 'applicatio~', H
\
(

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A sub-section (7) as an 'application' and sub-section (10) as an 'appeal or
application' which shall be made by a "petition in writing". The words
"appeal'' and "application" in the context of the provisions of Section 111
have, therefore the same meaning and it is, plainly, an original application
that is made. The shareholder does not resort to a superior court to review
B the decision of an interior court or tribunal. The fact, therefore, that
Section 9A(2) of the Special Court Act speaks of the transfer or 'every suit,
claim or other legal proceeding (other than an appeal)" does not exclude
the "application" or "appeal" made under the provisions of Section 111 of
the Companies Act from the purview of Section 9A(l} of the Special Cou~t
Act.
c Conclusion.
For all these reasons, the appeal must succeed. No order on the
transfer petition is now called for.

D The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the CLB under
appeal is set aside. The application of the Canara Bank pending before the
CLB shall stand transferred to the Special Court constituted under the \.
provisions of the Special Court (trial of Offences Relating to Transactions
in Securities) Act, 1992.

E The Transfer Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

K.S.D. Appeal allowed.