Exclusive winding-up jurisdiction prevails over execution remedies against a banking company in liquidation, with statutory transfer upheld.

Execution against a banking company in liquidation involving attachment, realization of assets, or other winding-up matters falls within the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by the Banking Companies Act, whose overriding provisions prevail over the enabling execution remedies under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. The latter provides facilities to a displaced creditor but does not create a competing exclusive execution scheme. Pending execution proceedings before the Tribunal may also be transferred to the High Court under the statutory transfer provision, and a transfer made on that basis was upheld despite objections based on delay or notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisions conferring execution jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 override the exclusive jurisdiction and overriding provisions of the Banking Companies Act in relation to execution against a banking company in liquidation; (ii) Whether the execution proceeding pending before the Tribunal was validly transferred to the Punjab High Court under section 45-C of the Banking Companies Act.

Issue (i): Whether the provisions conferring execution jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 override the exclusive jurisdiction and overriding provisions of the Banking Companies Act in relation to execution against a banking company in liquidation.

Analysis: The execution of the decree necessarily raised questions relating to attachment, realization of assets, and other matters arising in the course of winding up, all of which fall within the wide language of section 45-B of the Banking Companies Act. The Displaced Persons Act gave enabling remedies and facilities to a displaced creditor, but it did not confer an exclusive execution scheme comparable to the comprehensive jurisdiction vested in the High Court by the Banking Companies Act. In the conflict between the two enactments, the later and more specific banking provisions, supported by their own overriding clause, prevailed for matters connected with the winding up of a banking company.

Conclusion: The Banking Companies Act prevailed, and the execution proceeding and incidental matters were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the execution proceeding pending before the Tribunal was validly transferred to the Punjab High Court under section 45-C of the Banking Companies Act.

Analysis: The Tribunal, when executing the decree, functioned as a civil court for the purpose of section 45-C. The execution application filed in January 1953 remained pending when the amended banking provisions came into force, and the record showed that the Official Liquidator brought the matter to the High Court's notice and sought transfer. On the available materials, the transfer order was treated as having been made in exercise of the statutory power, and the challenge based on delay in reporting or absence of notice was rejected.

Conclusion: The transfer to the Punjab High Court was valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the banking winding-up jurisdiction displaced the Tribunal's execution forum and the High Court's transfer order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where execution against a banking company in liquidation involves claims or questions arising in the course of winding up, the comprehensive exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by the Banking Companies Act prevails over the Tribunal's enabling execution jurisdiction, and pending proceedings may be transferred under the statutory transfer provision.

---