Ganapatia Pillai, J.-

This is a debtor’s Insolvency Petition under sections 10, 14 and 15 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act for adjudication of the applicant. When the proceeding originally came up before the Master he passed an order directing the matter to be placed before the Insolvency Judge since the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the application was raised by the Official Assignee which is not settled by any authoritative decision of this Court. When the matter came up before the insolvency Judge (one of us) it was found that there was a conflict between the view taken by Ramaswami, J., in Thangiah v. Hanuman Bank1, following certain decisions of the Orissa High Court and the view taken by Ramachandra Iyer, J., in Shenoy v. Raghunath2, regarding the scope and effect of sections 45-A and 45-B of the Indian Banking Companies Act as amended in 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereupon at the instance of one of us this petition has been referred to this Bench.

The petitioner was carrying on a business in Dindigul which failed and a creditor of the petitioner obtained a decree for money against the petitioner and got him arrested in execution of that decree. Thereupon the petitioner filed I.P. No. 5 of 1959 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

One of the creditors of the petitioner is the Kannika Bank Limited, Dindigul, which is under liquidation by order of this Court. The Official Liquidator of the Kannika Bank raised an objection before the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul to the maintainability of the insolvency petition and the Subordinate Judge held that the insolvency proceeding could not be commenced without the leave of this Court which had charge of the winding up proceedings of the Kannika Bank and dismissed the insolvency petition. Thereupon the petitioner filed C.M.A. No. 45 of 1950 in the District Court, Madurai, against that order and that Court also dismissed the appeal relying upon the decision of Ramaswami, J. in Thangiah v. Hanuman Bank1. Against the order of the District Court a C.M.S.A. has been filed by the petitioner in this Court. He has also filed an application on the Original Side of this Court asking leave of the Company Judge to institute the insolvency proceedings in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dindigul.

We are not now concerned with the application for leave for instituting the insolvency proceeding in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, which will be heard and disposed of by the Company Judge. It was the Official Assignee who raised before the Master and before one of us sitting as Insolvency Judge the question whether the High Court on the Insolvency Side had Jurisdiction to entertain this application.

It is common ground that but for the winding up of the Kannika Bank by an order of this Court the insolvency Court having jurisdiction to entertain this debtor’s petition would be the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, where the insolvent was carrying on business and where most of his assets are located. Mr. Vasudevan for the petitioner contends that the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul has lost jurisdiction to entertain this application by reason of the provisions of sections 45-A and 45-B of the Act.

Before we deal with the argument addressed to us which indeed covered a wide field it may be necessary to state that we are not called upon to decide in an abstract manner what all proceedings are covered by section 45-B which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the High Court as the Company Court to entertain and decide claims by and against a Banking Company in liquidation. The short question for our determination is whether by reason of the provisions of sections 45-A and 45-B of the Act the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul which would be the Insolvency Court having jurisdiction under the Provincial Insolvency Act, if it applied to this case, is taken away and such jurisdiction is vested in this Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document