Company Court jurisdiction under liquidation proceedings remains available absent clear exclusion, despite parallel debt recovery proceedings.

Proceedings against a company in liquidation were considered in the context of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Court stated that the two statutes operate in different fields: the Companies Act functions as a special code for liquidation and protection of all creditors, including workmen with pari passu rights, while the 1993 Act focuses on speedy debt recovery by banks and financial institutions. In the absence of clear legislative exclusion, the Company Court's power under section 446 was not displaced, and its exercise depended on the facts of each case. The request to transfer the pending proceedings to the Company Court was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the civil court were liable to be transferred to the Company Court under section 446(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 in view of sections 17, 18 and 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The Court held that the Companies Act and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act operate in different fields. The former is a special code governing companies in liquidation and protects the interests of all creditors, including workmen whose dues rank pari passu under section 529A, while the latter is concerned with expeditious recovery of debts by banks and financial institutions. Relying on the binding principle that the Company Court must consider the interests of all stakeholders and the facts of each case, the Court held that the later enactment did not exclude the Company Court's power under section 446. The Court also distinguished the decisions relied upon by the applicant on their facts and noted that the proceedings had already progressed and leave to stay outside liquidation had earlier been granted.

Conclusion: The request to transfer the proceedings to the Company Court was rejected; the Company Court's jurisdiction under section 446(3) was held to remain available and was not overridden by the 1993 Act on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The applications seeking transfer and interim stay failed, and the proceedings were left to continue in the forums where they were pending.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of clear legislative exclusion, the Company Court's power under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 to control proceedings involving a company in liquidation is not displaced by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the exercise of that power must protect the pari passu interests of workmen and creditors on the facts of each case.

---