Judgment :- Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.: Re: C. A. N. 5831 of 2010 1. F. M. A. T. No. 934 of 2010 is filed by one Sujit Chakraborty against an ad interim order of injunction granted by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2195 of 2010. By the order impugned, the learned trial judge passed an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from holding the extra-ordinary general meeting of Bank of Rajasthan scheduled to be held on June 21, 2010 in terms of a notice dated May 23, 2010 and resolution dated May 18, 2010. This appeal is filed by a shareholder contending that he is affected by the ad interim order of injunction although he is not a party to the suit. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned advocate, appearing in support of the application for leave to prefer an appeal, submits that his client is interested in amalgamation of the bank and if the meeting is stalled, his client’s interest is prejudiced. After hearing Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned advocate, appearing in support of the application and Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1, we allow the prayer of Mr. Choudhury and grant his client leave to prefer this appeal before this Court. The application filed under C.A.N. 5831 of 2010 is allowed. The office is directed to register the appeal, if the appeal is otherwise in form. We make no order as to costs. Re: F. M. A. T. No. 934 of 2010. This appeal will be heard. The lower court’s records need not be called for. All formalities are dispensed with. Since this appeal is directed against the selfsame order, which has been impugned in the other appeal tendered under A. S. T. No. 432 of 2010, to avoid conflicting judicial opinions, we decide to hear this appeal along with A. S. T. No. 432 of 2010. Re: A. S. T. No. 432 of 2010 and F. M. A. T. No. 934 of 2010 By consent, both these appeals are taken up for hearing, although the matters are appearing under the heading ‘application’. The plaintiff claims that he holds 50 (fifty) shares of Bank of Rajasthan Limited. Re: A. S. T. No. 432 of 2010 and F. M. A. T. No. 934 of 2010 By consent, both these appeals are taken up for hearing, although the matters are appearing under the heading ‘application’. The plaintiff claims that he holds 50 (fifty) shares of Bank of Rajasthan Limited. He contends that Bank of Rajasthan Limited has decided to convene an extra ordinary general meeting to consider the proposal of the amalgamation of Bank of Rajasthan Limited with ICICI Bank Limited. We have perused a copy of the plaint as also a copy of the application for injunction. There are allegations of mismanagement of the company. It is, also, alleged that the extra ordinary general meeting has been convened to defraud the genuine shareholders. The learned trial judge, as we have indicated herein above, passed an ad interim order of injunction. The judge restrained the defendant and its men, agents and servants from holding the said extra ordinary general meeting fixed on June 21, 2010 in terms of the notice dated May 23, 2010 and the resolution dated May 18, 2010. The appeal filed under A. S. T. No. 432 of 2010 is by ICICI Bank Limited. The appeal was admitted for hearing by order dated June 21, 2010. Mr. Asish Kumar Sanyal, learned advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 in A. S. T. No. 432 of 2010, submits that the appeal could not have been admitted without granting leave to ICICI Bank Limited to prefer the said appeal. We are of the opinion that ICICI Bank Limited is adversely affected by the order impugned inasmuch as amalgamation of Bank of Rajasthan Limited is proposed with ICICI Bank Limited. Therefore, we formally record, although we are of the opinion that implied leave was granted by the order dated June 21, 2010, that we grant leave to the appellant-ICICI Bank Limited to prefer this appeal. The order impugned cannot stand in a moment’s scrutiny. Sub-section (3) of Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 runs as under: “44A(3). Therefore, we formally record, although we are of the opinion that implied leave was granted by the order dated June 21, 2010, that we grant leave to the appellant-ICICI Bank Limited to prefer this appeal. The order impugned cannot stand in a moment’s scrutiny. Sub-section (3) of Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 runs as under: “44A(3). – Any shareholder, who has voted against the scheme of amalgamation at the meeting or has given notice in writing at or prior to the meeting of the company concerned or to the Presiding Officer of the meeting that he dissents from the scheme of amalgamation, shall be entitled, in the event of the scheme being sanctioned by the Reserve Bank to claim from the banking company concerned, in respect of the shares held by him in that company, their value as determined by the Reserve Bank when sanctioning the scheme and such determination by the Reserve Bank as to the value of the shares to be paid to the dissenting shareholder shall be final for all purposes.” The Reserve Bank of India is, therefore, empowered to determine the market value of shares of the dissenting shareholder, who has voted against the scheme of amalgamation or who has given such notice against the amalgamation in writing prior to the meeting of the company to the Presiding Officer concerned and that a dissenting shareholder can obtain from the banking company concerned at best the market value of his shares as determined by the Reserve Bank of India. The learned judge has, also, not recorded any reason for her opinion as to how the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay unless an ex parte ad interim order of injunction is granted without giving notice of the application for injunction to the other side. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the City Civil Court Act, 1953, contemplates that the City Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of the description specified in the first schedule. Item nos. 10(i) and 10(ii) of the said schedule run as under: (i) under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (VII of 1913), or the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (X of 1949), or (ii) relating to or arising out of the constitution, incorporation, management or winding up of corporations. Item nos. 10(i) and 10(ii) of the said schedule run as under: (i) under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (VII of 1913), or the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (X of 1949), or (ii) relating to or arising out of the constitution, incorporation, management or winding up of corporations. Therefore, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction with regard to a suit relating to or arising out of constitution, incorporation, management or winding up of a corporation. When the legislature has though it fit to contemplate that the City Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction in respect of those matters, we are of the considered opinion that the learned judge ought not to have passed an ad interim order of injunction that has been passed by her. The plaintiff ought not to have moved and obtained an ad interim order of injunction from the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The order impugned is, therefore, set aside. These appeals are allowed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only. The cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only is to be paid by the plaintiff respondent no. 1 to the appellants in both these appeals in equal shares. In view of disposal of these appeals, all interlocutory applications have become infructuous and they are, also, disposed of. Let xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) is to be given to the learned advocates appearing for the parties on usual undertakings. I agree.