Overriding banking law scheme controls appealability and court fee treatment of orders under company winding-up proceedings.

Proceedings against officers of a banking company under section 235 of the Companies Act were held to fall within the overriding scheme of Part IIIA of the Banking Companies Act, so the appeal was subject to the restriction in section 45N and was not maintainable. The court rejected the argument of vested appellate rights because the relevant applications were filed after Part IIIA came into force, and treated the proceeding as a civil proceeding for section 45N. It further held that an order under section 235 read with section 45H was not a decree for Court Fees Act purposes, so ad valorem court fee was not payable and the fee already paid was sufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the special appeal against the order under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was maintainable in view of section 45N of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. (ii) Whether ad valorem court fee was payable on the memorandum of appeal on the footing that the order was a decree.

Issue (i): Whether the special appeal against the order under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was maintainable in view of section 45N of the Banking Companies Act, 1949.

Analysis: Proceedings under section 235 of the Companies Act, when invoked against officers of a banking company, fall within the special scheme of Part IIIA of the Banking Companies Act. Section 45A gives that scheme overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of the Companies Act and other laws. The court held that the application under section 235 was governed by section 45H, and any appeal from the resulting order was subject to the restriction in section 45N. As the subject-matter of the claim was below Rs. 5,000, the statutory bar to appeal applied. The contention that the right of appeal had vested before the amendment was rejected because the relevant applications were filed after Part IIIA came into force. The proceeding was also held to be a civil proceeding for the purpose of section 45N.

Conclusion: The special appeal was not maintainable and failed against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether ad valorem court fee was payable on the memorandum of appeal on the footing that the order was a decree.

Analysis: The court distinguished between an order having the force of a decree and an order merely enforceable as a decree. An order under section 235 of the Companies Act read with section 45H of the Banking Companies Act was held not to be a decree for the purposes of Schedule I, article (1), of the Court Fees Act. In the absence of any specific rule prescribing a higher fee, the appeal had to be treated as an appeal from an order, and the fee already paid was sufficient. The court also applied the principle that a fiscal statute must be strictly construed and ambiguity must favour the person sought to be made liable.

Conclusion: Ad valorem court fee was not payable and the court fee already paid was sufficient.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was held to be barred by the special appeal restriction under the Banking Companies Act, while the objection regarding court fee was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute with an overriding clause governs proceedings arising from winding up of a banking company, the appealability of orders and the incidents of the remedy must be determined by that special scheme, and an order merely enforceable as a decree is not to be treated as a decree for court-fee purposes unless the statute expressly says so.

---