Company Court orders may be executed as decrees, and the executing court must first verify its own jurisdiction.

An order made by the Company Court under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 is capable of execution as a decree under Section 635, on production of a certified copy. The executing court must independently determine whether the order can be treated as a decree and whether it has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction under the applicable Small Causes Courts law. An order rejecting maintainability without addressing executability and jurisdiction is unsustainable, and the matter must be reconsidered in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order passed under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 could be executed as a decree and whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain and execute such order.

Analysis: An order made by the Company Court under Section 446(2)(b) is enforceable in the manner contemplated by Section 635 of the Companies Act, 1956, which treats such an order as capable of execution through another court upon production of a certified copy. The executing court was required to examine whether the order could be treated as a decree and whether it had pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 14 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964. The impugned order proceeded on irrelevant considerations, including the Chit Funds Act, and did not address the real question of executability and jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The order rejecting maintainability was unsustainable. The Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to consider execution of the order as a decree, and the matter had to be reheard and decided in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of the Company Court under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 is executable as a decree under Section 635 of that Act, and the executing court must determine its own jurisdiction accordingly.

---