Since there is no Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction or Extra-Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this court to-day, part IX and Order XLIX of the Code are practically useless. It should further be remembered that the juris- diction exercised by this court under the Admiralty Act, Court the Companies Act and other statutory pro- visions are neither Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction nor Extra-ordinary civil Jurisdiction of this court rather they are Special Statutory Jurisdiction of this Court and the actions initiated under those laws are governed by the respective statutes and the rules framed thereunder. We have already seen that the jurisdiction exercised by this court as Admiralty Court emanates from the statute and the procedure is governed by the Rules framed thereunder. Thus Rule 35 of the Admiralty Rule will prevail over the provisions of the Code. Besides, the provisions of Part IX and Order XLIX of the Code have no manner of application to the instant cases, as the Admiralty Jurisdiction is completely different from both Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the erstwhile High Court. In Rule 3 of the Admiralty Rules it has been provided that a suit shall be instituted by a plaint drawn up, subscribed and verified according to the provisions of the Code and excepting as provided in Rule 3, there is nothing in the Rules which made the Code applicable for any other purpose in a proceeding in suit brought before the Admiralty Court. Provision of Rule 51 is very clear and it can not be construed to say that it makes the Code applicable to Admiralty Suit. Thus I do not find any force or substance in this argument.

Ref: 10 M.L.R(HC)(2005) -212
 

In an application under sections 76 read with section 79(3) of the Companies Act, 1913 the question whether Article 119 of the Articles of Association of the company will apply cannot be gone into as these sections only empower the Court to condone the delay in holding the annual general meeting. In the instant case the 7th annual general meeting could not be held in time for the disputes regarding the adjourned meeting for election, rotation of directors and the injunction order of the Court which appear to be the reasons beyond the control of the company resulting thereby the application is allowed with a direction to hold its 7th annual general meeting within 3 months from drawing up of the order.
Ref: 3 B.L.C(AD)(1998)-281

It can at best be said that the cause of action under sub-section (2) of section 8 would not arise until the expiry of 15 clear days from the date of service of the notice, because an agreement between the parties on the question of the appointment of a new arbitrator on any day within the said period will take away the jurisdiction of the Court to intervene. An application filed before the expiry of the said period may thus be regarded as premature in that particular circumstance, and the application may be dismissed, if it is taken up for hearing before the expiry of the said period. If however, the party served with the notice, does not communicate his concurrence within the said period on the question of the selection of an arbitrator, the application which was previously filed would be deemed to be perfectly in order after the expiry of the said period. The acquisition of jurisdiction by the Court is dependent upon the failure of the parties to reach an agreement within the specified time, and not on the application which may be filed to invoke the said jurisdiction, as that is obviously a matter of procedure.

Ref: 28 D.L.R(AD) (1976)- 22