9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of the execution petition by the Executing Court. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court versus the Alipore Court in execution proceedings under the Banking Companies Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Amendment of the Execution Petition by the Executing Court: Original Argument in the Court Below: The argument was that under the Civil Procedure Code, no amendment could be allowed by the Executing Court. Specifically, it was contended that the Executing Court can only grant amendments as provided under Order 21, Rule 16 or Rule 17, which did not apply in this case. Court's Analysis and Decision: The Court rejected this argument, stating that the approach was defective. The change in the bank's name did not alter its legal identity, as per Sections 21 and 23 of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 21 allows a company to change its name without altering its entity, and Section 23(3) clarifies that such a change does not affect any rights or obligations or legal proceedings. The Court emphasized that the decree-holder (the bank) had merely changed its name and was entitled to continue the proceedings in its new name. The Executing Court was bound to record this change. Even if considered an amendment, the Court held that there was ample power under Sections 151 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code to allow such an amendment in the interest of justice, as supported by the precedent in Rohini Kumar Roy v. Krishna Prasad Roy 39 CWN 1144. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court versus the Alipore Court in Execution Proceedings: New Argument Introduced: It was argued for the first time that under the Banking Companies Act, the High Court had exclusive jurisdiction to execute the decree, and therefore, the Alipore Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree or allow any amendment. Court's Analysis and Decision: The Court analyzed the relevant provisions, particularly Section 45M(b) and Section 45D(6) of the Banking Companies Act. Section 45M(b) allows a banking company to settle the list of its debtors as if it were being wound up, and Section 45D(6) states that the certificate issued by the High Court in such cases is deemed to be a certified copy of the decree for all purposes, including execution. The Court examined Section 45B, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court in certain cases, such as claims made by or against a banking company being wound up or applications made under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. However, the Court found that this exclusive jurisdiction did not extend to execution proceedings in cases where a banking company was working under a scheme rather than being wound up. The Court concluded that the execution of the decree could proceed in the normal way and that there was no provision requiring the High Court to exclusively handle such execution. The judgment-debtor's objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in the Alipore Court indicated acceptance of its jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the argument as a belated attempt to defeat the execution proceedings. Final Judgment: The application was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged. The Court found no grounds for interference and upheld the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court to handle the execution proceedings. There was no order as to costs. Concurrence: The second judge concurred with the decision. Conclusion: The High Court of Calcutta upheld the Executing Court's power to amend the execution petition to reflect the change in the bank's name and confirmed the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court to execute the decree. The application for revision was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
|
