Exclusive jurisdiction under Section 45-B: High Court authority covers winding up disputes, including occupancy issues, in bank liquidation.

The text analyses Part III-A (Sections 45-A to 45-C) of the Banking Companies Act, concluding that the provisions, read together with the Amendment transferring pending matters, vest exclusive jurisdiction in the High Court over "any claim" or "any other question" arising in the winding up of a banking company. It explains that the terms are wide enough to include determination of occupancy and other land-tenure questions when they relate to realization and distribution in liquidation, and that the parliamentary power to legislate for winding up with an overriding clause sustains incidental encroachment on State subjects under pith and substance. The statutory scheme therefore governs the suits in issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether questions concerning determination of occupancy rights and other disputes over land tenures claimed in suits by or against a banking company in liquidation fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 45-B of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, and related provisions, and whether those provisions are constitutionally valid in relation to State legislative competence over land.

Analysis: Sections 45-A, 45-B and 45-C of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (as amended) form Part III-A providing special provisions for speedy disposal of winding up proceedings and include an overriding clause displacing inconsistent provisions of other laws. Section 11 of the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1950 effects transfer of pending proceedings to the court exercising jurisdiction under the Act. The language of Section 45-B is wide, embracing "any claim" by or against a banking company and "any other question whatsoever of law or fact which may relate to or arise in the course of the winding up of a banking company." The terms "claim" and "relating to winding up" have expansive connotations and include matters beyond merely money claims, including questions necessary for realization and distribution of assets. Constitutional distribution of legislative subjects (Article 246 and Schedule VII) allows overlap to be resolved by the non-obstante or by applying the pith and substance doctrine; where Parliament legislates with respect to winding up of banking companies and attaches to that legislation overriding effect, incidental encroachment on State subjects (such as land tenure) for purposes of winding up is permissible. Precedents interpreting Part III-A and Section 45-B support a broad construction that vests exclusive jurisdiction in the High Court to decide matters relating to winding up, that transfers pending proceedings, and that contemplates summary procedures for settlement of lists of debtors and claims. Concerns about administrative inconvenience do not negate the statutory scheme which centrally aims at speedy realization and distribution in bank liquidation.

Conclusion: Section 45-B and related provisions confer exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain and decide questions, including determination of occupancy rights, that relate to or arise in the course of winding up of a banking company; the statutory scheme is constitutionally sustainable and applies to the suits in question, and therefore the appeals are to be dismissed in favour of the respondents.

---