1967 (11) TMI 67 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the District Court to execute an order in liquidation proceedings.
2. Interpretation of Sections 3, 164, 199, 200, and 201 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
3. Applicability of Sections 38 and 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in the context of company liquidation orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the District Court to Execute an Order in Liquidation Proceedings:
The primary issue was whether the District Court had the jurisdiction to execute an order for call money passed by the Madras High Court in liquidation proceedings. The appellant contended that the District Court was not a company court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and thus lacked jurisdiction. The court held that under Section 3, the High Court of the State is the court unless the Central Government empowers a District Court via notification. Since no such notification was issued for any District Court in Andhra Pradesh, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh remained the company court.

2. Interpretation of Sections 3, 164, 199, 200, and 201 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913:
- Section 3: The court having jurisdiction under this Act is the High Court unless the Central Government empowers a District Court by notification.
- Section 164: Allows the High Court to direct subsequent winding-up proceedings to be conducted in a District Court, making it a company court for those purposes.
- Sections 199, 200, and 201: These sections collectively deal with the enforcement of orders made by the company court. Section 199 allows orders to be enforced like civil court decrees. Section 200 permits enforcement of an order by any other company court in India. Section 201 specifies that a certified copy of the order must be produced to the court required to enforce it, which then takes steps as if it were its own order.

The court concluded that under Section 200, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh could enforce orders from the Madras High Court. Section 199 empowers the High Court to enforce orders as if they were civil court decrees. Section 201 ensures that a certified copy of the order is sufficient evidence for enforcement.

3. Applicability of Sections 38 and 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC):
Sections 38 and 39 of the CPC pertain to the execution of decrees. Section 38 allows a decree to be executed by the court that passed it or by the court to which it is sent for execution. Section 39 authorizes the transfer of decrees for execution to another court, provided it falls within the jurisdictional limits. The court held that these sections apply to company court orders under Section 199 of the Companies Act. The District Court, which has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, was deemed competent to execute the order transferred by the High Court.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the District Court had the necessary jurisdiction to enforce the order transferred by the High Court. The court reasoned that while the District Court was not a company court under Section 3, it could execute the order as a transferee court under Sections 38 and 39 of the CPC, read with Section 199 of the Companies Act. The court also referenced the Madras High Court decision in AIR 1927 Mad. 271, which supported this interpretation, and distinguished it from the Patna High Court decision in AIR 1927 Pat. 182, which involved a different procedural context.

Final Judgment:
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →