Vyas, J.

1. This appeal arises out of Insolvency Appln. No. 45 of 1949 of the Dist. Ct. of East Khandesh in which the Dist. J. of East Khandesh has ordered under Section 162, Companies Act (VII [7] of 1913) the winding up of the Fortune Commercial Bank, Ltd., Jalgaon, holding it proved on the evidence before him that the deceased managing director, of the applt. company, one Mr. K. G. Chaudhari, had grossly mismanaged the affairs of the company to secure benefit to himself his friends, that loans without security to the extent of Rs. 90,000 had been advanced to the directors of the company, that suspicious entries to cover up the fraud had been made in the accounts of the company by the deceased managing director, that since 1-3-1949, the company was doing no business, that the substratum of the company had gone, that therefore the object of this banking company could not be carried out that therefore it was just and equitable to wind up the company.

2. The original opponent company feeling aggrieved by the above-stated order has come in appeal.

3. At the very outset the applts learned advocate has raised a point of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Dist. Ct. which has ordered the winding up. It was contended by him that the Dist. Ct. had no jurisdiction to proceed with the appln. for winding up after the passing of the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1950 (XX [20] of 1950) that the only Ct. which could deal with such an appln. after the passing of the above said Act was the H. C. For the purpose of this contention reliance is placed upon Sections 10 and 11, Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1950 (xx [20] of 1950). This is how Section 10 of the amending Act runs :

"In this Part and in Part III, Court means the High Court exercising jurisdiction in the place where the registered office of the banking company which is being wound up is situated or, in the case of a banking company incorporated outside India which is being wound up, where its principal place of business is situated, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (VII [7] of 1913), or in any notification, order or direction issued thereunder or in any other law for the time being in force, no other Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any matter relating to or arising out of the winding up of a banking company."

Section 11 of the amending Act lays down :

"Where any proceeding for the winding up of a banking company or any other proceeding whether civil or criminal, which has arisen out of or in the course of such winding up, is pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of this Act it shall stand transferred on such commencement to the Court which would have had jurisdiction to entertain such proceeding if this Act had been in force on the date on which the proceeding commenced, and the Court to which he proceeding stands so transferred shall dispose of the proceeding as if this Act and the amendment made thereby were applicable thereto."

4. Relying on these two sections it was contended by Mr. Saldhana for the applt. company that after 18-3-1950, on which date the amending Act xx [20] of 1950 was passed the only Ct. competent to deal with matters relating to or arising out of the winding up of a banking company is the H. C that therefore the Dist. Ct. (East Khandesh) had no jurisdiction to proceed further with the appln. of the petnrs. after the passing of the amending Act It is argued by Mr. Saldhana that the words of Section 10 of the amending Act are quite unambiguous and not subject to any limitation or reservation. I agree with him that the words no other Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any matter relating to or arising out the winding up of a banking company are perfectly clear and exclude the jurisdiction of all Cts. except the H. C.

5. Mr. Kotwal for petner. No. 1 argued that the amending Act cannot go beyond the scope of the mam Act i. e., that the provisions of