Skip to content


Discount Bank of India Ltd. Vs. A.N. Misra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. No. 512-C of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953P& H256; [1953]23CompCas446(P& H)
ActsBanking Companies Act, 1949 - Sections 45A
AppellantDiscount Bank of India Ltd.
RespondentA.N. Misra
Appellant Advocate C.L. Aggarwal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate H.L. Sarin, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of..........bank of india limited and since the appeal was filed winding up proceedings were started by the bombay high court. the bank is now represented by the official liquidator.2. the simple question arising in the case is whether this appeal is a proceeding which can only be dealt with by the bombay high court under the provisions of section 45a. this section provides that the court which is dealing with the matter of the winding up shall be the only court having jurisdiction to entertain 'any matter relating to or arising out of the winding up of a banking company'. it is contended by mr. chiranjiva lal that since the bank is now represented by the official liquidator, the appeal must be looked upon as a matter relating to the winding up of a company. on the other hand, it is contended by.....
Judgment:

Khosla, J.

1. This is an application under Section 45A, Banking Companies Act, 1949, praying that Regular First Appeal No. 51 cf 1950 be transferred to the High Court of Bombay. The appellant in the appeal is the Discount Bank of India Limited and since the appeal was filed winding up proceedings were started by the Bombay High Court. The Bank is now represented by the Official Liquidator.

2. The simple question arising in the case is whether this appeal is a proceeding which can only be dealt with by the Bombay High Court under the provisions of Section 45A. This section provides that the Court which is dealing with the matter of the winding up shall be the only court having jurisdiction to entertain 'any matter relating to or arising out of the winding up of a banking company'. It is contended by Mr. Chiranjiva Lal that since the Bank is now represented by the Official Liquidator, the appeal must be looked upon as a matter relating to the winding up of a company. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. Sarin that the suit was filed before the company was wound up, the suit was decided and the appeal was also filed before the winding up proceedings began and therefore it cannot be said that this appeal has any relation to the winding up proceedings. Mr. Sarin has also referred to the provisions of the Constitution whereby the jurisdiction of a High Court to hear appeals from Courts subordinate to it cannot be curtailed by statute.

3. It appears to me that the meaning of the words 'relating to or arising out of' cannot be extended to mean any matter in which a banking company is a party and the company goes into liquidation on its being wound up. The matter must relate to or arise out of the winding up of a company. Kapur J., in a recent case transferred a suit pending in the Court of a Subordinate Judge, Delhi to Bombay on the ground that after the suit was instituted the company went into liquidation and so the suit must be treated as matter relating to or arising out of the winding up of the company. Kapur J., relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in 'Appeal No. 35 of 1951 (A)'. In that case, however, the suit was brought by the Official Liquidator and the suit was instituted after the winding up proceedings had started. The mere fact that in appeal the liquidator seeks to set up a claim which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge is not, in my view, sufficient to hold that this matter arises out of or relates to the winding up of a company. There must be some intimate connection between the proceedings or claim and the winding up of a company. This connection does not obtain in the present case and I must hold that the case is not covered by Section 45A, Banking Companies Act. I, therefore, decline to transfer the case to the Bombay High Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //