Precedent on Section 94 of Companies Act: Somnath Chatterjee & Anrs. Vs. Sharmila Shetty:

Anirudha Roy, Mr. Ratnesh Raj, Mr. Anu joy Basu, M. Mr. Srinjoy Bhattacharya… on behalf of the appellant Sakhya Sen, Mr. Regards, Mr. Ishaan Saha Mr. Joydeep Mukhopadhyay… on behalf of the other side The erudite 5th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, passed order No. 37 on March 17, 2017, in T. S. No. 306/2014, which infuriates the revisionist. https://www.registerkaro.in/post/section-94-of-companies-act-2013

The defendant in the case, who is the revisionist before this court, submitted an application under ruling VII Rule 10 of the Code, but the learned court below denied it by the contested ruling.
Revisionists would contend that, in light of Section 94 of the Companies Act of 2013, the City Civil Court in Kolkata does not have territorial jurisdiction.

The proviso is the only distinction between Section 163 of the 1956 Act and Section 94 of the 2013 Act that is pertinent to this instance. The proviso gives a company the authority to keep its registers and other records, which are typically kept at the company’s cites, or registered office, as well as any other location within the same city (as required by the 1956 Act) or anywhere in India (as permitted by the 2013 Act), provided that the Board of Directors has authorized it to do so. In this regard, there are other conditions that must also be met.

The court has a pleading regarding the company’s shares being kept at its corporate office in Calcutta. The Supreme Court has settled on principles for applying Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of the Code, and there is a presumption of resolution. However, this presumption can only be rebutted during the trial. The court does not interfere with the City Civil Court’s findings to retain the suit. The revisionist’s counsel argues that Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 bars civil courts from entertaining suits for cause of action under the Act. The court does not interfere with the order and does not issue a cost order.