Anujee Et Al. V. Lewis Et Al.,

1940     Present: Soertsz and Nihill JJ.

ANUJEE et al v. LEWIS et al.

IN THE MATTER OP AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION. 

Company-Jurisdiction to wind up Bank-Powers of District Court-Courts . Ordinance, s. 62-Writ of prohibition.

A District Court has jurisdiction by virtue of section 62 of the Courts Ordinance to entertain proceedings for the winding up of a Banking Company not registered in Ceylon.

THIS was an application for a writ of prohibition against the District Judge of Jaffna, prohibiting him from proceeding further with the compulsory winding up of the Tranvancore and Quilon National Bank.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the District Court of Jaffna had no jurisdiction to wind up a bank that has not been incor­porated by registration under the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 of 1861 and Ordinance No. 2 of 1897.

N. E. Weerasooria, K.C. (with him E. B. Wikremanayake and J. A. T. Per era), for the petitioners.-A District Court in Ceylon has no jurisdiction to wind up the bank in question. The bank is not registered in Ceylon ; it is incorporated and registered in Quilon, in the Native State of Travancore. In our law there is provision for the winding-up of only such companies as come under Ordinance No. 4 of 1861 or Ordinance No. 2 of 1897.

Jurisdiction must necessarily be expressly conferred upon a Court. There is no statutory provision which confers jurisdiction on our Courts regarding companies which are not registered in Ceylon. In re Lloyd Generale Italiano [1 (1885) 29 Ch. D. 219.]  is a relevant English case which was decided at a time when the law in England was similar to that which governs the present case. See also 8 Halsbury (2nd ed.) page 530, para. 1173, and page 533, para. 1179 summarizing the position.

When an inferior Court is exceeding its jurisdiction, a superior Court is bound to grant a writ of prohibition-The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London v. Cox et al [2 (1867) 2 H. L. 239 at 254, 277 et seq. ].2; Worthington v. Jeffries [3 (1875) 10 C. P. 379.]; Farquharson v. Morgan  [4 (1894) 1 Q. B. 552.]

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him T. K. Curtis and C. C. Rasa Ratnam), for first respondent.-It is not disputed that the Bank, though a foreign company, is resident in Jaffna. A company is subject to the laws of the land. When a company which can sue and be sued and is thus given legal recognition in Ceylon enters into contracts and disappears, it cannot be said that our Courts are powerless to do anything with the property left behind. It can be wound-up-In re Commercial Bank of India [1(1868)6 Eq.C.517.] . Section 62 of the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6) deals with the jurisdiction of various courts in the larger sense of the word, and section 63, with the civil jurisdiction of a District Court. The whole of the residuary juris­diction with regard to civil matters is thus conferred on the District Courts. The District Court has unlimited and plenary jurisdiction in civil matters and cannot be compared to an inferior Court in England-Thevagnanesekeram v. Kupparumal [2 (1934) 36 N.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document