Company court jurisdiction survives later tenancy law, but eviction without notice was recalled for breach of fair procedure.

The company court's jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956 was held not to be displaced by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, because the parliamentary law occupied the field and the later State tenancy law, despite Presidential assent, did not oust that authority. However, the eviction direction against persons in possession could not stand where it was made in disclaimer proceedings without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court therefore rejected the jurisdictional objection but recalled the eviction part of the earlier order for breach of fair procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company court's order directing eviction of the applicants from the premises, passed in disclaimer proceedings without notice to them, could be recalled; and whether the Companies Act, 1956 was overridden by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 so as to deprive the company court of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Companies Act, 1956 is a parliamentary enactment in the field of Union legislative competence, and the authority of the company court under Section 446(2) and Section 535 is not displaced by a subsequent State tenancy law merely because that law carries Presidential assent. The apparent conflict with Section 12A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 did not divest the company court of jurisdiction. However, the order of January 22, 2013 had the effect of dispossessing the applicants from premises in their possession without notice to them and without affording them an opportunity to contest the claim. Since the applicants were not heard before their eviction was directed, the prejudice caused to them required correction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the company court's jurisdiction failed, but the order effecting eviction of the applicants was recalled because it was passed without notice and in violation of fair procedure.

Final Conclusion: The applicants succeeded in obtaining recall of the eviction part of the earlier order and restoration of the consequential relief, while the broader jurisdictional objection to the company court was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A company court's jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956 is not ousted by a later State tenancy enactment where the parliamentary law occupies the field, but an eviction order affecting persons in possession cannot stand if made without notice and a fair opportunity of hearing.

---