SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 447

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Amitava Das Gupta (In both the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
Nath Bank Ltd., (In both the Appeals), Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1750 of 1966 and 109 of 1967, D/- 21-10-1970. 219
Advocates appeared
P. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. A K. Bose and R. C. Prasad, Advocates with him), for Appellant (In both the Appeals); Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, for Respondent (In both the Appeals).

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure - Section 47 and 151 - Order 21 Rule 58 - Banking Companies (Amendment) Act 1950 - Section 11 - Banking Companies Act, 1949 - Section 45-B and 45-C – Limitation Act - Article 183 - Banking company - Winding up - Liquidation - Respondent-Nath Bank Limited brought a money suit against appellant, and one in Patna Courts - Bank, however, went into liquidation as a result of a petition filed by two of its creditors Calcutta High Court - Reserve Bank of India was appointed official liquidator of said Bank - Banking Companies (Amendment) Act 1950 received assent of President - Under Section 11 of said Act where any proceeding for winding up of a banking company or any other proceeding, whether civil or criminal which had arisen out of or in course of such winding up, was pending in any Court immediately before commencement of Act it was to stand transferred to Court which would have had jurisdiction to entertain such proceeding if Act had been in force on date on which proceeding had commenced – Held, Before us two main contentions have been sought to be raised - First relates to question of limitation and second to no notice having been issued by Calcutta High Court to judgment debtors on transfer of suit to that Court - As regards first point it is not disputed that if Art. 183 of Lim. Act, 1908 was applicable execution proceedings would not be barred by time - Period of limitation prescribed by that Article is 12 years to enforce a judgment, decree or order of any court established by Royal Charter in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction - Jurisdiction had to be exercised in ordinary course of law without any special step being necessary to assume it - It was necessary to send for original records of Calcutta High Court relating to Original Trial Suit No in which money decree was granted in favour of Nath Bank Ltd - Let those records be called as expeditiously as possible and appeal placed for further hearing before this Court as soon as record is received - Order accordingly.

Judgement

GROVER, J.:- These appeals have been brought to this Court by certificate from a judgment of the Patna High Court.

2. The facts may be stated. The respondent-Nath Bank Limited -brought a money suit against the appellant, Amitava Das Gupta, and one Benoy Kumar Sen Gupta in the Patna Courts on March 3, 1949. The Bank, however, went into liquidation as a result of a petition filed by two of its creditors in March 1950, in the Calcutta High Court. The Reserve Bank of India was appointed the official liquidator of the said Bank. The Banking Companies (Amendment) Act 1950 received the assent of the President on March 15, 1950. Under Section 11 of the said Act where any proceeding for the winding up of a banking company or any other proceeding, whether civil or criminal which had arisen out of or in the course of such winding up, was pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of the Act it was to stand transferred to the Court which would have had jurisdiction to entertain such proceeding if the Act had been in force on the date on which the proceeding had commenced. By virtue of Section 11 the suit which was pending in the Patna Court was transferred to the Calcutta High Court. The records were accordingly transmitted to the Calcutta High Court where the suit was renumbered as Original Trial Suit No. 122 of 1951. After trial it was decreed against the appellant and the other defendant. The decree holder then applied for execution of the decree in the Calcutta High Court and prayed for attachment of a house in Patna. A precept was sent by the Calcutta High Court to the District Judge Patna followed by the transfer of decree to the Court of the District Judge for execution under Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The execution case was placed before a Subordinate Judge before whom a number of objections were raised. Two Miscellaneous cases arose out of the objections filed under Order 21 Rule 58 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which were dismissed The appellant filed an application on June 3, l959 under Section 47 of the Code that the decree sought to be executed was null and void and was incapable of execution. He filed another objection alleging that the decree-holder had suppressed certain material facts. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the decree passed by the Calcutta High Court was null and void and it was barred by limitation when the execution was taken out. The matter was taken in appeal to the High Court

3. The High Court took the view that the registered office of Nath Bank Ltd., was situate in Calcutta and therefore the Calcutta High Court would be the Court where winding up proceeding could be started. Under Section 45-B of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, as amended by the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1950, the High Court of Calcutta where the winding up proceedings were going on was competent to decide all claims of the company in liquidation Reliance was also placed on the amendment made by the Banking Companies Act tact 52 of 1953) which Incorporated Section 45-C with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court to dispose of the suit. The claim of Nath Bank therefore, against the appellant and Benoy Sen Kumar Gupta was fully within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. An argument was raised on behalf of the judgment-debtors that after transfer of the suit to the Calcutta High Court it should have issued a notice to them of such transfer so that particular objections to the plaintiff s claim could be made there. Since no notice was issued to them they were precluded from prosecuting the suit properly in the Calcutta High Court. The learned judges of the Patna High Court were, however, of the view that the burden lay upon the judgment-debtors to establish that notice of the Original Trial Suit No. 122/51 had not been issued by the Calcutta High Court to them. The order sheet of the suit had not been brought on the record and in the absence of that docume






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top