Evacuee property law excludes civil and company court intervention where statutory remedies and title dispute procedures apply.

The evacuee-property legislation was described as a complete special code for notification, vesting, possession, claims, appeal and revision, with express bars on challenge and civil-court interference. On that basis, a claimant had to pursue the statutory remedies rather than seek injunctive relief in the High Court, whose jurisdiction was held barred. The Company Court under the Companies Act was also said not to determine a bona fide disputed title between the liquidator and the Custodian in summary proceedings, and the Custodian's possession under the evacuee-property law was treated as an executive act not requiring leave. The result stated was that the application could not be maintained in Company Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court's jurisdiction was barred in view of the Bombay Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949 and the Ordinance replacing it, so that the liquidator could not seek injunctive relief against the Custodian. (ii) Whether the Company Court had jurisdiction under the Companies Act to determine a disputed question of title to the property as between the liquidator and the Custodian, or to require leave before action was taken.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court's jurisdiction was barred in view of the Bombay Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949 and the Ordinance replacing it, so that the liquidator could not seek injunctive relief against the Custodian.

Analysis: The evacuee-property legislation created a complete special machinery for notification, vesting, possession, claims, appeal and revision. It also contained express provisions barring challenge to orders made under the Act and barring legal proceedings in respect of acts done in good faith. The substituted Ordinance continued that scheme and took away civil-court interference. On that footing, a person claiming an interest in the property had to pursue the statutory remedies under the evacuee-property law rather than invoke the Court's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction of the High Court was barred and the liquidator's remedy lay under the evacuee-property .

Issue (ii): Whether the Company Court had jurisdiction under the Companies Act to determine a disputed question of title to the property as between the liquidator and the Custodian, or to require leave before action was taken.

Analysis: The winding-up provisions empowered the Court in aid of liquidation, but not to adjudicate a bona fide title dispute between the liquidator and a third party in summary proceedings. The Court's jurisdiction under the Companies Act was held not to extend to deciding ownership against strangers to the liquidation, and the Custodian's act of taking possession under the evacuee-property law was treated as an executive act, not legal proceedings requiring leave of the Court.

Conclusion: The Company Court had no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute in these proceedings, and no leave under the Companies Act was required for the Custodian's action.

Final Conclusion: The application could not be maintained in the Company Court and failed on both jurisdictional objections.

---