Repeal and saving provisions preserved District Judge jurisdiction over pending winding up proceedings despite the later Companies Act.

The repeal of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 did not divest District Judges of jurisdiction over winding up proceedings already pending when the Indian Companies Act, 1956 commenced. Section 647 of the 1956 Act, read with section 658 and section 6 of the General Clauses Act, preserved such proceedings, and the phrase requiring the company to be wound up in the same manner and with the same incidents was held to include the forum and procedure as well as the incidents of winding up. Pending matters therefore continued before the District Judge, and the 1956 Act was not construed as retrospectively transferring them to the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the repeal of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and the commencement of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 deprived District Judges of jurisdiction to continue winding up proceedings that were pending but undetermined at the date of repeal.

Analysis: The saving language in section 647 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, read with section 658 of that Act and section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was held to preserve pending winding up proceedings. The expressions used in section 647, namely that the company shall be wound up in the same manner and with the same incidents as if the Act had not been passed, were construed to include the forum and the procedure as well as the incidents of winding up. The Court also relied on the corresponding language in section 284 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and on the general rule that repeals do not affect pending legal proceedings unless a contrary intention appears. The Act of 1956 was not treated as retrospectively divesting jurisdiction in matters already pending before District Judges.

Conclusion: District Judges retained jurisdiction to continue and determine winding up proceedings that had commenced under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 before the commencement of the Indian Companies Act, 1956.

Final Conclusion: The pending winding up proceedings were not transferred to the High Court merely because of the repeal, and they could be carried forward to final disposal by the District Judge under the earlier statutory regime.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a repealing enactment contains saving language and the general saving provision also applies, pending proceedings are preserved and the court originally seized of the matter retains jurisdiction to complete them unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed.

---