appeal reference and revision under crpc

This article is written by Priyanshu Upadhyay, a student of School of Law, Christ University.


Civil courts are the lowest courts which take cognizance of all the suits of civil nature except few of which the jurisdiction is specifically ousted. In India, the functioning of civil court is guided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 9 of CPC brings out the jurisdiction of Civil Courts which reads as under,

  1. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred:- the courts shall (subject to the provisions herein) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which the cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Explanation– A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decisions of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.  

Download Now

It can be inferred from the above that the civil courts can adjudicate upon all the suits of civil nature except those where the jurisdiction has been expressly or impliedly barred. The expression ‘expressly or impliedly barred’ has been discussed by courts in several cases and now it is settled principle that, the jurisdiction can be barred either through an express provision under any statute or by the legislative intent which is clearly implied from the statute. In the landmark decision of Secretary of State v. Mask & Co.[1], the Privy Council observed that:

“it is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be expressed or clearly implied.”     

From the observance of the Privy Council it is clear that the position in relation to the jurisdiction of civil court was made clear in very beginning. The Supreme Court of India discussed the matter much later in the year 1963 in the case of Radha Kishan v. Ludhiyana Municipality[2] wherein it was held that:

“Under Section 9 of the civil procedure code the court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A statute, therefore, expressly or by necessary implication can bar the jurisdiction of civil court in respect of a particular matter. The mere conferment of special jurisdiction on a tribunal in respect of the said matter does not in itself exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts. The statute may specifically provide for ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts; even if there was no specific exclusion, if it creates liability not existing before and gives a special and particular remedy for the aggrieved party, the remedy provided by it must be followed. The same principle would apply if the statue had provided for the particular forum in which the remedy could be had. Even in such cases, the civil court’s jurisdiction is not completely ousted.”

Form the two judgments it is clear that civil court can adjudicate upon all the suits of civil nature unless its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred. It should also be kept in mind that the term ‘impliedly’ should never be given liberal interpretation rather strict approach should be adopted and clear implication from the statute is mandatory for ousting the jurisdiction of civil court.       


Companies Act, 2013 introduced the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to replace the existing Company Law Board. The intention behind establishing a new tribunal is to relieve the courts of the unnecessary burden and all the matters pending before the Company Law Board are to be transferred to the NCLT as per the Company Act, 2013. But the tribunal is yet not established and the Company Law Board is presiding over all the pending and fresh matters in relation to the company law.
Click Above

Company law Board was established vide Notification No. 364 dated 31st May, 1991. The procedures for filling the applications/petitions before the Company Law Board have been laid down under the “Company Law Board Regulations, 1991”. The powers and functions of Company Law Board are enumerated under Section 10E of the Company Act, 1956, wherein sub-section (4C) and (4D) lays down several matters upon which it enjoys the powers vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and sub-section (5) states that powers and functions shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and on the board’s discretion.                                                                                                                                          


The jurisdiction of civil court over the company law matters has always been a debatable issue. The main contention put forth against the civil court’s jurisdiction is that the position of Company Law Board has been kept at par with that of Civil Court because of which the appeal against any decision or order of company law board is to be filed before High Court. It is always debated that, since a special body has been established to adjudicate over the matters related to company law it automatically ousts the jurisdiction of civil court.

The issue at hand can be best understood with the help of the decided cases wherein the courts have minutely analyzed and read Section 9 of CPC, 1908, in relation to the intention and powers conferred to company law board under the Companies Act, 1956. Some of the important decisions are as under:

  1. Maharaja Exports and Another v. Apparels Exports Promotional Council[3], the Delhi High Court held,

“Under Section 9 of the CPC, 1908, Civil Court have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. Unlike some statutes, the Company Act does not contain any express provision barring the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts in matters covered by the provisions of the Act. In certain cases like winding up of companies, the jurisdiction of civil courts is impliedly barred.”

  1. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal[4] in this case it was held that

“the ouster of jurisdiction shall not be readily inferred. If the matter is of civil nature and if ouster of the jurisdiction is not implied or expressed then the jurisdiction of civil court cannot be questioned.”

  1. CDS Financial Services (Mauritius) Limited Vs. BPL Communications Limited and ors.[5] in this case it was held that,

“when there is no express provision excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, such exclusion can be implied only in cases where a right itself is created and the machinery of enforcement of such right is also provided by the statute. If the right is traceable to general law of contracts or it is a common law right, it can be enforced through the Civil Court, even though the forum under the statute also will have jurisdiction to enforce that right. Sections 397,398 and 408 of the Companies Act, 1956 do not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the company court to grant reliefs against oppression a nd mismanagement. The scope of these sections is to provide a convenient remedy for minority shareholders under certain conditions and the provisions therein are not intended to exclude all other remedies.”

  1. Greeneline Transit System Pvt. Ltd. v. Secy Cum Commissioner[6], the issue in this case was that whether the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to decide on matter under the Section 397 and 398 of Companies Act, 1956. It was observed that,

“where a breach of the provision of the shareholder’s agreement between the parties is involved along with other acts of oppression and mismanagement, the Civil Court may exercise their jurisdiction.”        


From the above it can be inferred that there is no express provision under the Company Act, 1956, which bars the jurisdiction of civil court over the company matters. It is very clear from several judgments that whenever a civil dispute arises, even if under Company Law, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction can never be ousted.

It is also clear from the judgments that express or implied condition barring the jurisdiction is very important. The jurisdiction of Civil Court can be barred only under those situations where it has been expressly excluded under the provisions of the act. Section 9 of the CPC states that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all the suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. Best example for this is that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under the Securitization Law and Civil Court’s very rarely get into the matter related to it.

Lastly it is very difficult to bar the jurisdiction of civil court in relation to company law matters and the position in relation to it has already been settled through various case laws.


LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content 

[1] (67 I.A. 222)

[2] 1963 AIR 1547, 1964 SCR (2) 273

[3] 1986 (60) CC 353.

[4] (2003) 117 Com cases 206 (Sc): (2003) 4 Comp LJ 385

[5] (2004) 121 Comp Cases 375

[6] C.M. (M) No. 490/2012


  1. I am a unsecured creditor of a private limited company and have agreement that if any amount payable to me is defaulted, then the company will calculate area of company owned land @ Rs 1200/- and give me sale deed and possession of that much calculated land area. I filed 138 cheque bounce case, but still retain 8.11% right on company land.
    Please advise if I should file money suit or land suit as a Civil case or with Tribunal as per sec 430 of company act 2013. My no. is 7 2 7 6 7 7 3 6 5 2 and my email is [email protected]

  2. Sections 10GB of CA (1956) and 430 of CA (2013) expressly state that civil courts have no jurisdiction. So, that expressly bars the civil courts’ jurisdiction, doesn’t it?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here