Sections 45-A and 45-B of the Banking Companies Act vest exclusive jurisdiction in the High Court to decide all claims by or against a banking company relating to, or arising in the course of winding up.

P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application, under sections 45-A and 45-B of the Banking Companies Act (X of 1949) as amended by Act LII of 1953), for a declaration that the proceedings in I. P. No. 19 of 1958, on the file of the Sub-court, Masulipatam, and the order of adjudication passed therein are null and void and not binding on the Vijaya Commercial Bank, Limited (in liquidation. ( The facts giving rise to this application are these: The Vijaya Commercial Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Banking Company) was would up by an order of the High Court of Judicature, Madras, made in O. P. No. 417 of 1953. As Nadela Sivaramakrishniah (hereinafter referred to as "the debtor") was, on the date of the winding up order, indebted to the Banking Company, he was included in the list of debtors prepared by the Liquidator. By an order of the Madras High Court, dated 7th December, 1954, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,693-9-9 with further interest and a certificate ws accordingly issued under Sec. 45-D (6) of the Banking Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The debtor having defaulted to pay the amount within the time allowed, the Liquidator initiated proceedings in execution and a extent of ac. 3-35 cents of which he was the owner, was attached on the 19th October 1957, in E. P. No. 43 of 1957 on the file of the Sub- Court, Masulipatam. While so, on the 10th October, 1958, Nadella Rama Subbiah (2nd respondent) who, it is alleged, is closely related to the debtor, filed a petition under Sec. 11 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for the adjudication the debtor as an insolvent. The 2nd respondent alleged that the debtor and another owed him a sum of Rs. 1,200/- under a promissory note executed by then and that the debtor had fraudulently executed a mortgage deed in favour of one Basaviah. The debtor was adjudged insolvent by an order of the Sub-Court, dated 17th January 1959.

( 2 ) IT would appear that notice of the insolvency proceedings was not given to the Banking company. Pursuant to the order of attachment obtained by him, the Liquidator attempted to bring to sale the properties of the debtor. At this juncture, the Official Receiver, Krishna, moved the Sub-court for stay of the sale on the ground that the debtor had been adjudged insolvent and that his properties had vested in him. Thereupon the court stayed the sale and dismissed the execution petition filed by the Liquidator.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the Liquidator before me that the order of adjudication passed by the Sub-court, Masulipatam, in I. P. No. 19 of 1958 is null and void in view of Ss. 45-A and 45-B of the Act.

( 4 ) THE debtor, on whom notice of this application was served, remained expert. The Official Receiver, Krishna, to whom also notice was given, took no interest sin the matter.

( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit contending inter alia that Secs. 45-A and 45-B of the Act could not be invoked by the Banking Company, that if the Company ws aggrieved by the order of adjudication passed by the Sub-court, it should have filed an appeal against that order, and that the relief sought by the applicant in the present application is misconceived.

( 6 ) ON these contentions, the questions for decision is whether the order adjudging the debtor an insolvent passed by the Sub-court, Masulipatam, in O. P. No. 19 of 1958 is null and void by reason of Secs. 45-A and 45-B of the Act.

( 7 ) FOR appreciating the point in controversy it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. With the object of consolidating and amending the law relating to the Banking Companies, the Banking Companies Act (X of 1949) was enacted. One of the stated objects of the legislation was to provide a machinery by which proceedings sin liquidation of Banking Companies could be expedited and speedily terminated. It was found, however, that the Act of 1949, as originally enacted, was inadequate to achieve that purpose. It was in this sit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document