Special Court Act limits on securities transactions did not bar Company Court jurisdiction over a winding up petition on fixed deposits.

A winding up petition based on fixed deposit receipts was found maintainable because the deposits arose after the statutory period covered by the Special Court Act and did not fall within the Act's definition of "securities" under section 2(c). The section 3(2) notification therefore did not extinguish the Company Court's jurisdiction over claims outside the Act's scope. The Court further held that appointment of a custodian did not, by itself, bar adjudication of an independent winding up proceeding. On that basis, the Company Court retained jurisdiction and the petition was admitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the winding up petition based on fixed deposit receipts was barred because the respondent-company had been notified under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, and whether the Company Court retained jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Analysis: The claim arose out of fixed deposit receipts executed after the statutory period relevant to the Special Court Act, and the deposits did not answer the statutory description of "securities" within section 2(c) of that Act. The notification under section 3(2) did not extinguish the Company Court's jurisdiction over claims outside the Act's ambit. The Court applied the statutory scheme and the principle that the Special Court Act is confined to transactions in securities during the specified period, while also holding that the appointment of a custodian does not by itself bar adjudication of independent winding up proceedings. On that reasoning, the petition was held to be maintainable.

Conclusion: The Company Court retained jurisdiction and the winding up petition was admitted.

---