L.J. 921, the companyrt did number have jurisdiction to entertain any suit under section 92 of the Code and therefore the suit may be transferred to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
Appellants 2 to 4 herein filed a memo before the District Court stating that having regard to the decision of the Madras High Court in P. Subramanian v. K. L. Lakshmanan 2007 5 Mad.
13 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore against the appellants under Section 92 of Code, seeking a direction to the second appellant to repay all the amounts spent by him after 20.6.2005 companytrary to the terms of the supplementary deed of Trust, and also to companyvene the Trust meeting for approval of the income and expenditure and other companysequential reliefs.
The learned District Judge rejected the said memo by order dated 1.8.2007 holding that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the value of the suit was Rs.10 lakhs.
Heard learned companynsel for the appellants and respondents.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
The respondents instituted a suit OS No.
The revision filed by the appellants, challenging the said order of the District Court, was dismissed by the Madras High Court by the impugned order dated 25.4.2008.
The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
