Execution of winding-up orders may be transferred to a competent civil court; the transferee need not itself be a company court.

An order made in winding-up proceedings may be enforced through the execution machinery applicable to civil decrees after the certified copy is produced before the company court. Sections 199 to 201 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 permit the company court to enforce the order itself or transmit it for execution to a competent subordinate court, and the transferee court need not itself be separately constituted as a company court. Its competence is determined by the ordinary rules of civil decree execution, including pecuniary jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 164, dealing with later winding-up proceedings, does not govern execution of an existing order.

---

---

Issues: Whether a District Court, to which a winding-up order for recovery of call money had been transferred for execution, was competent to enforce the order though it had not been separately constituted as a company court under section 3 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.

Analysis: Section 3 treats the High Court as the company court, subject to a notification empowering a District Court to exercise company-court jurisdiction. Sections 199 to 201 provide the machinery for enforcement of orders made by a company court. Reading these provisions together, an order made in winding-up proceedings may be enforced in the same manner as a decree of a civil court, and once the certified copy is produced before the company court, that court may itself enforce the order or transmit it for execution in the manner in which its civil decrees are executed. The transferee court need not itself be a company court; its competence is tested by the ordinary rules governing execution of civil decrees, including pecuniary jurisdiction under sections 38 and 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 164, dealing with subsequent winding-up proceedings, does not control enforcement of an already made order. The contrary Patna view was distinguished on the ground that the certified copy had not been produced before the company court there.

Conclusion: The District Court had jurisdiction to execute the transferred order, and the objection to its competence failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was unsuccessful because the enforcement mechanism under the Companies Act permitted the company court to have the order executed by a competent subordinate court.

Ratio Decidendi: An order made in liquidation proceedings may, after production of the certified copy before the company court, be enforced or transferred for execution by a competent subordinate court under the combined operation of sections 199 to 201 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and the transferee court need not itself be a company court.

---