Concurrent jurisdiction in company liquidation does not oust civil court jurisdiction over ejectment and mesne profits suits.

Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 conferred jurisdiction on the court supervising liquidation, but that jurisdiction was concurrent and did not, by itself, exclude the City Civil Court. Item 16 of the First Schedule to the City Civil Courts Act, 1953 was read as preserving only suits exclusively triable by that court under a special law, not as defeating existing civil jurisdiction where the special law creates concurrent jurisdiction. The West Bengal premises tenancy framework also supported the view that such ejectment and mesne profits suits lay in the competent civil forum and were later transferred to the City Civil Court. The plaint should not have been returned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment and mesne profits in view of the company liquidation proceedings and the statutory provisions governing jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 conferred jurisdiction on the court dealing with the liquidation, but that jurisdiction was concurrent and did not by itself oust the City Civil Court. Item No. 16 of the First Schedule of the City Civil Courts Act, 1953 was read as preserving only suits exclusively triable by this court under a special law, not as removing the City Civil Court's otherwise existing jurisdiction where the special law created merely concurrent jurisdiction. The legislative sequence under the West Bengal premises tenancy enactments also supported the conclusion that jurisdiction for such suits had been vested in the competent civil forum and later transferred to the City Civil Court.

Conclusion: The City Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, and the order directing return of the plaint was incorrect.

---