Company liquidation suits require ad valorem court fee, and guarantors may be joined with the company in one proceeding.

A creditor's recovery suit against a company in liquidation remains a money suit even when brought in the company court under section 446(2), so the ordinary requirement of ad valorem court fee is not displaced. The official liquidator's statutory claim is distinct from a private creditor's recovery action, and a petition under the Companies Act cannot be treated as attracting only a fixed fee. The text also states that leave under section 446(1) is required only for proceedings against the company, not against guarantors or other jointly or severally liable persons; where the suit is maintainable against the company, such defendants may be joined under Order 1 Rule 6 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit against a company in liquidation could be entertained in the company court without payment of ad valorem court fee. (ii) Whether, in a winding-up matter, the suit could also be maintained in the company court against guarantors who were not the company.

Issue (i): Whether a suit against a company in liquidation could be entertained in the company court without payment of ad valorem court fee.

Analysis: A creditor instituting proceedings to recover money from a company in liquidation is still pursuing a regular money suit, the forum alone being shifted to the company court by the special jurisdiction under section 446(2). That change of forum does not dispense with the ordinary incidents of a recovery suit, including payment of court fee. The position of the official liquidator filing a claim in discharge of statutory duty is distinct from that of a private creditor suing for recovery. A petition described as one under the Companies Act cannot be treated as a petition for taking some other judicial action so as to attract the fixed fee provision.

Conclusion: The objection that ad valorem court fee was payable was upheld, and leave could not be granted unless the deficiency in court fee was made good.

Issue (ii): Whether, in a winding-up matter, the suit could also be maintained in the company court against guarantors who were not the company.

Analysis: Leave under section 446(1) is required only for proceedings against the company in liquidation and not against persons other than the company. Once the company court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the company under section 446(2), the plaintiff may, under Order 1 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, join other persons who are jointly or severally liable under the same contract. Denying that option would encourage multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

Conclusion: The suit was held maintainable against the guarantors as well.

Final Conclusion: Leave to proceed was granted against the company and the guarantors, but the bank was required to make up the deficiency in court fee within the stipulated time, failing which the leave application would stand dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a winding-up proceeding, section 446(2) confers forum jurisdiction on the company court, but it does not dispense with the ordinary requirement of ad valorem court fee on a creditor's recovery suit; and once the suit is properly maintainable against the company, other jointly or severally liable defendants may be joined in the same proceeding under the civil procedure rules.

---