Exclusive rent controller jurisdiction limits section 446; execution proceedings under a limited tenancy need no company court leave.

Execution proceedings arising from an order creating a limited tenancy under the Delhi Rent Control Act are governed by the special statutory scheme and fall within the Rent Controller's exclusive jurisdiction. They are therefore not "other legal proceedings" under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and no leave of the company court is required after winding up. The Rent Controller, acting under that special jurisdiction, is not a "court" for section 446(3), so the proceedings cannot be transferred to the company court. The controlling principle is that proceedings before a special tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction are outside the transfer and leave provisions of section 446.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether execution proceedings arising out of an order creating a limited tenancy under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act are "other legal proceedings" within section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, requiring leave of the company court for continuance after winding up; (ii) Whether the Rent Controller is "a court" within section 446(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, so that such proceedings can be transferred to the company court.

Issue (i): Whether execution proceedings arising out of an order creating a limited tenancy under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act are "other legal proceedings" within section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, requiring leave of the company court for continuance after winding up.

Analysis: Section 446 is intended to bring company assets under the control of the winding-up court and to avoid unnecessary litigation, but it does not extend to proceedings that lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of a special tribunal. Under sections 14, 21 and 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, matters relating to the creation and enforcement of a limited tenancy are governed by a special statutory scheme, and the Rent Controller has exclusive jurisdiction to determine them. Proceedings for execution of such an order therefore cannot be treated as proceedings that the company court itself can appropriately deal with.

Conclusion: The execution proceedings were not "other legal proceedings" within section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and no leave of the company court was required.

Issue (ii): Whether the Rent Controller is "a court" within section 446(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, so that such proceedings can be transferred to the company court.

Analysis: Section 446(3) permits transfer only of proceedings pending in a "court" other than the winding-up court. A Rent Controller acting under the Delhi Rent Control Act exercises a special statutory jurisdiction, and the company court cannot assume that role or perform the functions vested exclusively in that authority. Since the proceeding was pending before a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, it was not amenable to transfer under section 446(3).

Conclusion: The Rent Controller was not a "court" within section 446(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, and the proceedings could not be transferred.

Final Conclusion: The petition seeking transfer of the execution proceedings failed because the Rent Controller's exclusive jurisdiction under the rent statute excluded the operation of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings before a special tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction are not "other legal proceedings" for the purposes of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, and such a tribunal is not a "court" whose proceedings can be transferred under section 446(3).

---