Sections 45A and 45B of the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1950, divest all courts except the High Courts of jurisdiction in matters relating to or arising out of the winding up of a banking company.

( 1 ) THIS Rule which involves a a short point under the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act 1950, arises out of the following facts.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the owners of Premises No. 10b Canal Circular Road, Calcutta, which they let out to Opposite party No. 3, Nur Mahammad Habib and Co. That tenant left the lands upon a notice to quit but immediately thereafter opposite Party No 2, the Orient Glass Company Ltd. , entered upon the land. According to the petitioners, the entry by the Orient Glass Company Ltd. , was an act of trespass and not only did they enter upon the land wrongfully, but they also caused damage to some structures standing thereon In those circumstances, the petitioners brought a suit against both Nur Mahammad Habib anct Company and the Orient Glass Company Ltd. , for recovery of possession of the land and damages. That suit resulted in an ex parte decree, passed on 19th June 1950 whereby the petitioners claim for possession was allowed and a sum of Rs. 1680 was awarded to them as damages, together with a further amount as costs.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the suit the petitioners attached before judgment some properties belonging to the Orient Glass Company Limited, which are described in the petition before us as 'a few movables of trifling value. " After obtaining the decree, the petitioners applied for its-execution and prayed for recovery of possession as-also for the realisation of the decretal amount by sale of the properties attached before judgment. The proceeding that was initiated upon that application was Title Execution case No. 9 of 1950 in the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Alipore.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, on 31st August 1950, the Bank of Commerce, Limited, filed a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C. , in respect of the attached movables. The Bank's case, in substance, was that on 20th September 1945, the then owners of a. Glass Factory, called the National Glass Factory, hypothecated to the Bank the entire factory, including its machinery, accessories, furniture and fittings as a security for overdrafts up to the limit of Es. 50,000 and that it was the National Glass Factory which has subsequently become the Orient Glass Company Limited. The further case of the Bank was that a sum of Es. 44096-4-0 was due to it on account of the advances taken by the-Glass Company and that because of the hypothecation referred to above, the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the movables concerned at the date of the attachment. The proceeding that was started on that application by the Bank was Miscellaneous case No. 9 of 1950.

( 5 ) ON 1st September 1950, an order was made for the liquidation of the Bank. We are informed that it is a compulsory winding up and therefore the winding up of proceedings would commence-on the date when the application for winding up was made, under Section 168, Companies Act. The date on which that application was made does not, however, appear from the record, nor was either of the parties in a position to give it to us.

( 6 ) NO steps appear to have been taken by the Company in the claim case for some time and the next thing that happened was that on 30th November 1950, the Official Liquidator, who is Opposite Party No. 1 to this Rule, appeared before the Court and informed it of his appointment as liquidator. He asked for an adjournment for two months in order to enable him to take further steps in the matter and such adjournment was granted. The case ultimately came up for hearing on 17-2-1951, when the Official Liquidator made a verbal prayer that the claim case should be transferred to the High Court under the provisions of Section 11, Banking Companies (Amendment) Act. The application was opposed by the petitioners, but their objection was overruled and the learned Judge made an order, transferring the proceeding to this Court. The actual order recorded by the learned Judge is that " the proceedings be transf