Pre-1956 winding up continues under the earlier regime; procedural misdescription does not defeat a substance-valid liquidation application.

A winding up commenced before the Companies Act, 1956 continued under the earlier regime, so the later Act did not govern the liquidation and the District Judge retained competence to deal with steps taken in aid of it. Incorrect citation of the provision and failure to use the prescribed form were treated as substance-neutral irregularities that did not affect jurisdiction or prejudice the appellant. A transfer of assets could also proceed without prior settlement of the appellant's claim where the earlier protection order had been modified, notice of the later application had been issued, and safeguards for the claimed amount were preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application in a winding up that had commenced before the Companies Act, 1956 came into force. (ii) Whether the application was vitiated by being styled under the wrong provision and by non-adoption of the prescribed form and procedure. (iii) Whether the transfer of assets could be permitted without first settling the appellant's claims.

Issue (i): Whether the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application in a winding up that had commenced before the Companies Act, 1956 came into force.

Analysis: The winding up had admittedly commenced before the commencement of the Companies Act, 1956. By force of section 647, the later Act did not apply to the winding up, which had to proceed as if the Act had not been passed. The application was only a step in aid of that liquidation, and the question was therefore governed by the pre-existing winding-up regime. The transfer sought was part of implementing the liquidation scheme and did not oust the District Court's authority.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed and the District Judge was competent to deal with the matter.

Issue (ii): Whether the application was vitiated by being styled under the wrong provision and by non-adoption of the prescribed form and procedure.

Analysis: The Court treated the incorrect citation of the provision and the omission to use a particular form as matters of substance-neutral irregularity. These defects did not affect the real nature of the application or the jurisdiction of the court. No prejudice to the appellant was shown.

Conclusion: The procedural objection failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the transfer of assets could be permitted without first settling the appellant's claims.

Analysis: The earlier order requiring settlement before transfer had been modified by a later order, and the record showed that notice of that application had been issued and the appellant was aware of the later order. The Court also noted that adequate safeguards had been retained for the appellant's claimed amount. The competing claims were left to be worked out in due course.

Conclusion: The transfer could proceed without prior settlement of the appellant's claims.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order below failed on all material grounds, and the order permitting the transfer in the course of liquidation was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a winding up commenced before the commencement of a later Companies Act, the liquidation continues under the earlier regime, and procedural misdescription of the provision or form does not defeat a substance-valid application made in aid of that winding up.

---