Territorial jurisdiction under evacuee property law cannot extend to a Calcutta company through a Madras branch or shareholder status.

Territorial competence under the Evacuee Property law could not be based merely on a Madras branch office or on the evacuee status of shareholders. A company incorporated at Calcutta and registered in West Bengal remained a separate legal entity, and the Madras Assistant Custodian could not declare its assets evacuee property or proceed against them when the statute did not extend to that territory. The Custodian also could not confirm the order in a manner that effectively took over, controlled, or wound up the company's business and assets, as that power lay only with the High Court having jurisdiction over the company. The proceedings were therefore beyond jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Assistant Custodian at Madras had jurisdiction to declare a company registered in Calcutta as evacuee property and proceed against its assets under the Evacuee Property law; (ii) whether the Custodian could confirm the order and, in substance, direct the winding up or takeover of the company's business and assets.

Issue (i): whether the Assistant Custodian at Madras had jurisdiction to declare a company registered in Calcutta as evacuee property and proceed against its assets under the Evacuee Property law.

Analysis: The company was incorporated at Calcutta and its registered office was in West Bengal. The law invoked did not extend to West Bengal, and the mere presence of a branch office at Madras did not confer authority on the Madras Custodian to treat the company itself as evacuee property. Even if the majority of shareholders were evacuees, the company remained a separate legal entity and could not be proceeded against by an authority lacking territorial competence.

Conclusion: The Assistant Custodian had no jurisdiction, and the declaration was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the Custodian could confirm the order and, in substance, direct the winding up or takeover of the company's business and assets.

Analysis: The appellate order treated the company as an evacuee firm, authorized takeover of its assets, and effectively restricted the business of the non-evacuee shareholders. This amounted in substance to an attempt to control or wind up a company incorporated in Calcutta, a course that could only be pursued by the High Court having jurisdiction over that company. The Custodian therefore acted beyond power in confirming and enlarging the original order.

Conclusion: The Custodian's order was without jurisdiction and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings against the company failed because the Madras authorities lacked territorial competence to treat a Calcutta-incorporated company as evacuee property or to interfere with its assets and corporate structure.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority under the Evacuee Property law cannot, by reason only of a branch office within its territory or the evacuee status of shareholders, exercise jurisdiction over a company incorporated and situate outside the territorial reach of that law.

---