Company Court jurisdiction under Section 446 governs possession claims in liquidation where premises are not required by the Official Liquidator.

The note addresses whether the winding up (Company) Court has jurisdiction under Section 446 to hear a landlord's recovery of possession application against a company in liquidation and whether eviction grounds under the rent control law were established. It explains that Section 446 permits the Company Court to regulate proceedings affecting assets to preserve them for equitable distribution; procedural eviction mechanisms do not oust that jurisdiction. The Court may examine whether the Official Liquidator genuinely requires the premises and, if not, order delivery of possession. The respondent was found entitled to possession on the facts and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Company Court had jurisdiction under Section 446 of the Companies Act to entertain and dispose of the landlord's application for recovery of possession of premises let to a company in liquidation notwithstanding the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act and whether the respondent had made out grounds for eviction under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Analysis: Section 446 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to entertain or dispose of suits or proceedings by or against a company in winding up and to regulate proceedings affecting the assets of a company in liquidation. The protective purpose of Section 446 is to preserve assets for equitable distribution among creditors. A special statute that provides a procedural forum for recovery of possession does not, by itself, create new substantive rights or liabilities that would oust the operation of Section 446; such statutes operate as procedural codes but proceedings concerning realization of assets in winding up fall within the purview of the Company Court. The Company Court may inquire whether the Official Liquidator genuinely requires the premises for liquidation purposes; if not required, the Court may order delivery of possession to the landlord. The Company Court's power extends to determining whether grounds under the rent control law (Section 14) are made out in the particular facts before it and to pass appropriate orders to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and secure justice.

Conclusion: The Company Court had jurisdiction under Section 446 to entertain and dispose of the landlord's application for recovery of possession of premises in question; the respondent established entitlement to possession on the facts and the appeal is dismissed in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 446 of the Companies Act empowers the winding up court to entertain proceedings affecting a company's assets in liquidation, and where the Official Liquidator does not require demised premises for liquidation, the Company Court may order delivery of possession even if the subject matter could otherwise fall within statutory rent eviction procedures.

---