9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und up by this court. On August 17, 1977, this court in its company jurisdiction directed the said Title Suit No. 59 of 1976 to be transferred from Alipore Court to this court. Pursuant thereto, the said suit has been transferred and is now pending in this court marked as Transferred Company Suit No. 9 of 1977. During the pendency of the winding-up proceedings, the claim of the creditor was paid off in full by defendant No. 1 in instalments granted by this court. The proceedings for winding up has thereupon been permanently stayed. The present application moved on a notice dated September 13, 1983, the plaintiff seeks, inter alia the following orders : "( a )Transferred Suit No. 9 of 1977 and its records and proceedings be retransfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncurred. The manager of the branch of the plaintiff involved in this transaction has affirmed an affidavit on September 26, 1983, which has been filed in reply to the aforesaid affidavit of defendant No. 2. He submitted further that the suit had been filed in the proper court, viz. , the Alipore Court, which had jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. Thereafter, the suit was duly transferred to this court under a special provision of law. Both the institution and the transfer of the suit were lawful and effective. There was no provision in the Companies Act, 1956, that a transferred suit should be retransferred in the event the winding-up proceedings of the company was permanently stayed. Learned advocate finally submitted on inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against defendant No. 1, this court acquired jurisdiction to have the suit transferred from the Alipore Court to this court, exercised such jurisdiction and the suit was validly transferred to and is pending before this court. The question to be decided is whether on account of the permanent stay of the winding-up proceeding, this court has lost its jurisdiction to try this suit. Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides that when a winding-up order has been made, the court which is winding up the company would, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any suit or proceeding by or against the company. The section further provides that notwithstanding anything contained i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
