9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (11) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, Capoor J., after making an order of winding-up of the company, directed that all subsequent proceedings shall be had in the District Court of Delhi. Shri P. P. R. Sawhney was the District Judge then. On 1st June, 1964, he transferred the winding-up case to the court of Shri C. G. Suri, then Additional District Judge. On December 6, 1965, a petition under section 446(2) of the Companies Act was made by the official liquidator against Mysore Chemicals . Fertilizers Ltd. This petition was made by the liquidator to the court of Shri M. L. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi, who had succeeded Mr. C. G. Suri in the meanwhile. To this application, Mysore Chemicals raised a preliminary objection. They objected to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge by their application dated 12th September, 1966. This objection was repelled by the Additional District Judge by order dated 19th September, 1966. Mysore Chemicals appealed to this court. This is F. A. O. No. 57 of 1967. Mysore Chemicals then made another independent application. This time it was made to the District Judge. In this application it was said that the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 2(14) of the Act. I have to examine the validity of this argument. This objection to jurisdiction is not a new one. It has been raised previously also. For the first time in the present form this objection was raised in connection with section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that every petition under the Hindu Marriage Act shall be presented to the District Court. But, in some cases, the District Judge made over petitions to the Additional District Judges in Delhi. In Janak Dulari v. Narain Das AIR 1959 Punj. 50 the question arose whether the court of the Additional District Judge was a principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the meaning of section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and whether the District Judge to whom the petition was presented could transfer it to the Additional District Judge for trial. A Division Bench of the Punjab High Court took the view that it could not be done and that the court of an Additional District Judge could not be considered to be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. The basis of their view was a decision of the Supreme Court in Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab AI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Government, in consultation with the High Court, may also appoint Additional District Judges to exercise jurisdiction in one or more courts of the District Judges. (2)Additional District Judges shall have jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of such cases only as the High Court, by general or special order, may direct to deal with and dispose of or as the District Judge of the District may make over to them for being dealt with and disposed of : Provided that the cases pending with the Additional District Judges immediately before the 28th day of June, 1963, shall be deemed to be cases so directed to be dealt with or disposed of by the High Court or so made over to them by the District Judge of the District as the case may be. (3)While dealing with and disposing of the cases referred to in sub section (2), an Additional District Judge shall be deemed to be the court of the District Judge." Now, if we look at this section it makes it quite clear that the Additional District Judges are appointed : "to exercise jurisdiction in one or more courts of the District Judges." This means that they are appointed to the courts of the district judges. It also makes it plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -clause (2) and held that the Additional Judge is a separate and distinct court of its own. The legislature has now amended this part of the Act which shows that the Additional District Judge which is the term now used in sections 21 and 21-A is not a separate or distinct court of its own as was held by the Supreme Court. Of some importance is another amendment made by the Punjab Act 17 of 1963, section 2. By this amendment section 21-A was inserted, which is in these terms: "21-A. The High Court or the District Judge may assign to an Additional District Judge any of the functions of the District Judge, including the functions of receiving and registering cases and appeals, which, but for such assignment of functions, could be instituted in the Court of the District Judge, and in the discharge of those functions the Additional District Judge shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, exercise the same powers as the District Judge." Again, the legislature has made it clear beyond all manner of doubt that the High Court or District Judge can assign functions of receiving and registering cases and appeals to Additional District Judge and in the discharge of those func ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to, jurisdiction can be raised with any success now. The counsel for the appellant has placed considerable reliance on Kuldip Singh's case ( supra ) and in particular on the following observations of Bose J.: "The Punjab Courts Act nowhere speaks of an Additional District Judge or of an Additional Judge to the District Court; also, the Additional Judge is not a judge of co-ordinate judicial authority with the District Judge ... This is a very different thing from the administrative distribution of work among the judges of a single court entitled to divide itself into sections and sit as division courts. When the Chief Justice of a High Court or the District Judge of a District Court makes an administrative allotment of work among the judges of his court, their jurisdiction and powers are not affected, and if work allotted to one judge goes to another by mistake his jurisdiction to entertain the matter and deal with it is not affected. But that is not the scheme of the Punjab Courts Act and the mere fact that Mr. J. N. Kapur called himself the Additional District Judge and purported to act as such cannot affect the matter of his jurisdiction. As the Punjab Courts Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act clearly gives that power. The Supreme Court in Kuldip Singh's case ( supra ) also recognised and confirmed the existence of that power in the District Judge. The Additional District Judge, therefore, on transfer of assignment of a case has all the powers, authority and jurisdiction of the District Judge himself so far as that case is concerned. The assignment, so to speak, carries with it the necessary authority or competence provided the transferee judge is the Additional District Judge and there is nothing in the particular statute to bar or prohibit the exercise of the District Judge's power of assigning the business to the Additional District Judge. Once that is done, the Additional District Judge would be as competent to deal with the case as the District Judge himself. It is no doubt true that the case must be instituted in the Court of the District Judge itself. The case or the appeal cannot be presented directly to the Additional District Judge. This is what happened in the Supreme Court decision. As I have said that was not a case of transfer by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge but a case of direct presentation of the appeal to the latter court wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the one intended by section 435 is hearing that case. It is being heard in the very jurisdiction which has been prescribed by the Central statute. Lastly, it was argued that in F.A.O. No. 57 of 1967 the official liquidator made the petition under section 446(2) to the Court of the Additional District Judge directly and this could not have been done. This argument rests on a fundamental misconception. The District Judge had made over the liquidation case to the Additional District Judge. All subsequent proceedings arising in that case can be entertained directly by the Additional District Judge. It is not the requirement of law that every application which is made in the case transferred to the Additional District Judge must be made-to or routed through the District judge. What is transferred is the case which carries with it the power and authority to deal with all the proceedings arising in that case. (See section 446 of the Companies Act). I, therefore, agree with Mr. Jagjit Singh, then District Judge (now a judge of this court). I would dismiss all the three appeals but in the circumstances make no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear in the court of Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
