Concurrent jurisdiction under winding-up law allowed a possession suit in Bombay despite company liquidation proceedings.

The Bombay Rent Act conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, for landlord-tenant possession disputes, while section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not expressly exclude other competent courts and its scheme contemplated proceedings in such courts, including transfer of pending matters. The winding-up court therefore had concurrent, not exclusive, jurisdiction. Applying that construction and the practical convenience of litigating the possession claim where the premises were situated, the Court granted leave to institute and proceed with the suit in Bombay against the official liquidator, subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave should be granted to institute a suit in Bombay against the official liquidator, and whether the winding-up court under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 had exclusive jurisdiction so as to exclude the jurisdiction conferred by section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Analysis: Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, for landlord-tenant disputes relating to recovery of possession. Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, as amended, empowered the winding-up court to entertain claims by or against the company, but its language and scheme did not expressly exclude other competent courts. The provision contemplated suits and claims instituted or arising in courts other than the winding-up court and also provided for transfer of pending matters, which indicated concurrent jurisdiction rather than exclusivity. The Court also considered the practical convenience of litigating the possession claim where the premises were situate and balanced that against the costs of winding-up.

Conclusion: The winding-up court did not have exclusive jurisdiction, and leave to sue in Bombay was granted.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was permitted to proceed with the possession suit in Bombay against the official liquidator, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the language of the winding-up provision does not expressly exclude other competent courts and its scheme contemplates proceedings in such courts, the winding-up court's jurisdiction is concurrent, not exclusive, and leave may be granted to sue in the court having local jurisdiction under the special rent statute.

---