1956 (9) TMI 25 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the District Court of Trichur post-enactment of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Applicability of Section 647 of the Companies Act, 1956 to pending proceedings.
3. Jurisdiction under Sections 10, 391, and 392 of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Validity of the arrangement sanctioned under Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1913.
5. Transfer of proceedings for expeditious disposal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the District Court of Trichur Post-Enactment of the Companies Act, 1956:
The main question was whether the Trichur District Court lost its jurisdiction to continue the liquidation proceedings of the Sitaram Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. after the Companies Act, 1956 came into force. The petitioner relied on Sections 10, 391, and 392 of the Companies Act, 1956, arguing that the High Court is the only court with jurisdiction under the new Act. Section 10(2)(b) specifically mentions that for companies with a paid-up share capital of not less than one lakh of rupees, jurisdiction is vested in the High Court unless conferred upon a District Court by notification. Since the company in question had more than one lakh of paid-up share capital, the petitioner contended that the District Court no longer had jurisdiction.

2. Applicability of Section 647 of the Companies Act, 1956 to Pending Proceedings:
Section 647 of the Companies Act, 1956, states that pending winding-up proceedings should continue as if the new Act had not been passed. This section clearly indicates that the provisions of the new Act do not apply to winding-up proceedings commenced before its enactment. The court noted that the jurisdiction of the District Court under the Companies Act of 1913 was never questioned and that the liquidation proceedings should continue under the old Act.

3. Jurisdiction under Sections 10, 391, and 392 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The petitioner argued that Section 10(2)(a) and Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, vested exclusive jurisdiction in the High Court for matters related to compromises or arrangements with creditors, thus invalidating the District Court's jurisdiction. However, the court observed that Section 647 saves the jurisdiction of the District Court for pending proceedings, and Section 392(3) applies only to orders passed under Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1913, before the commencement of the new Act. The court concluded that the District Court retained jurisdiction over the liquidation proceedings and related matters.

4. Validity of the Arrangement Sanctioned under Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1913:
The petitioner contended that the arrangement sanctioned by the District Court did not meet the requirements of Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1913. The court rejected this argument, stating that the arrangement was indeed covered by Section 153, which includes both compromises and arrangements. The court emphasized that the order passed by the District Court was valid under Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1913, and should be treated as such.

5. Transfer of Proceedings for Expeditious Disposal:
The petitioner argued that transferring the proceedings to the High Court would ensure expeditious disposal, as the liquidation process had been delayed. The court acknowledged the delay but noted that the convenience of the liquidators and parties, who were based in Trichur, was a significant factor. The court concluded that there was no sufficient ground for transfer and dismissed the petition, urging the District Judge to expedite the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition for transfer, holding that the District Court of Trichur retained jurisdiction over the liquidation proceedings under the Companies Act of 1913, as saved by Section 647 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court also validated the arrangement sanctioned under Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1913, and found no merit in the petitioner's arguments for transfer based on jurisdiction or expeditious disposal.

← Previous Next →