Company court jurisdiction in winding up is preserved despite debt recovery law; leave depends on case-specific facts.

The Debt Recovery Act does not exclude the company court's jurisdiction under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 in winding-up matters. The company court retains control over suits, claims, and transfer of proceedings against a company in liquidation to ensure orderly administration and distribution of assets. The debt recovery statute creates a separate forum for expeditious debt recovery, but it does not govern winding up or distribution among creditors. The two enactments operate in distinct fields and must be harmoniously construed. Leave of the company court is therefore not automatically dispensed with; the question must be decided on the facts, including the position of secured and unsecured creditors and the interests of workmen.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 excludes the jurisdiction of the company court under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 in respect of suits and proceedings against a company in liquidation, and whether leave of the company court is still required.

Analysis: The provisions of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 confer special jurisdiction on the company court in winding up matters, including control over suits, claims and transfer of proceedings against the company, so that the assets of the company in liquidation may be administered and distributed in an orderly manner. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 creates a special forum for expeditious recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions, but it does not lay down the procedure for winding up of a company or for distribution of its assets among creditors. The two enactments operate in different fields. Their non obstante clauses are not irreconcilable, and they must be harmoniously construed so that the object of both statutes is preserved. The company court must therefore consider the facts of each case, the position of secured and unsecured creditors, and the interest of workmen before deciding whether leave should be granted or proceedings transferred.

Conclusion: The Debt Recovery Act does not oust the company court's jurisdiction under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, and leave of the company court is not automatically dispensed with; the matter must be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Final Conclusion: The company court retains jurisdiction in winding up matters notwithstanding the Debt Recovery Act, and the competing statutory schemes are to be applied by a case-specific, harmonious construction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company is in winding up, the special jurisdiction of the company court under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 is not excluded by the later debt recovery legislation, because the two enactments operate in distinct fields and must be harmoniously construed according to the facts of each case.

---