1954 (12) TMI 18 - SC - Companies Law

Whether the ex parte decree against appellant was made without jurisdiction and was a nullity and that he continued to be a tenant notwithstanding the said ex parte decree? Held that - In the present case the Court which passed the ex parte decree was fully competent to decide the matter raised before it on summary application and to pass the ex parte decree which has been challenged by the suit and that the decree of the Courts below dismissing the suit is correct.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Court under section 45-B of the Banking Companies Act for ejectment in liquidation cases.
- Validity of ex parte decree obtained under section 45-B through summary application versus suit.
- Interpretation of appropriate proceedings under section 45-B and the scope of the Banking Companies Act.

Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court under section 45-B:
The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Court under section 45-B of the Banking Companies Act for ejectment in liquidation cases. The appellant challenged an ex parte decree obtained by the Liquidator for his ejectment from a parcel of land leased from the Bank. The Court affirmed that the relief of ejectment fell within the scope of section 45-B, granting the Court jurisdiction over such matters. The appellant contended that the appropriate proceeding for such relief was a suit, not a summary application. However, the Court emphasized the wide language of section 45-B, granting the Court full power to decide all claims and questions relating to the winding up of a banking company.

2. Validity of ex parte decree obtained through summary application:
The appellant argued that the ex parte decree obtained through a summary application was without jurisdiction and a nullity. The Court examined the provisions of the Banking Companies Act, particularly sections 45-A, 45-B, and 45-G, which empower the Court to decide claims and questions arising in the course of winding up. The Court noted that the Act aimed to expedite liquidation proceedings and provide a speedy resolution. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the decree was invalid due to the mode of proceeding, emphasizing that the Court had the competence to decide the matter summarily.

3. Interpretation of appropriate proceedings under section 45-B:
The Court addressed the interpretation of the appropriate proceedings under section 45-B of the Banking Companies Act. It distinguished the Sree Bank Case, where the nature of the proceeding required or permitted under section 45-B was questioned. The Court disagreed with the approach in the Sree Bank Case, emphasizing that section 45-B did not restrict proceedings to suits but allowed for summary applications. The Court concluded that the ex parte decree challenged by the appellant was validly obtained through a summary application, dismissing the suit against it.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the ex parte decree obtained under section 45-B through a summary application. The Court affirmed its jurisdiction under the Banking Companies Act to decide claims and questions related to liquidation proceedings, emphasizing the Act's aim to expedite winding up processes. The judgment clarified the interpretation of appropriate proceedings under section 45-B, highlighting the availability of summary applications for expeditious resolution of claims in liquidation cases.