Company liquidation claims may proceed by petition under section 446(2)(b), with fixed court fee applying instead of suit fee.

Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed as conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the company court to entertain a money claim by the official liquidator by petition under clause (b), and not only by suit under clause (a). The existence of clause (a) did not exclude clause (b), and the amendment was read as allowing a summary claim procedure in winding up to avoid delay and expense. On that basis, the petition was maintainable under section 446(2)(b), and the court fee payable was the fixed fee applicable to an application under the Court-fees Act, not ad valorem fee as for a money suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a claim by the official liquidator for recovery of money could be filed as a petition under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, or whether a suit alone was competent under section 446(2)(a); (ii) whether the petition was liable to court fee as on a suit or only as an application under the Court-fees Act.

Issue (i): Whether a claim by the official liquidator for recovery of money could be filed as a petition under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, or whether a suit alone was competent under section 446(2)(a).

Analysis: The enlarged jurisdiction introduced by the 1960 amendment to section 446(2) was construed as conferring a comprehensive power on the company court to entertain not only suits under clause (a) but also claims under clause (b). The amendment was treated as analogous to section 45B of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, which had been understood to permit summary claims in winding up so as to avoid delay and expense. The existence of clause (a) was held not to exclude clause (b); the two provisions were treated as alternative statutory avenues, and the procedural rules could not restrict the plain language of the section.

Conclusion: The claim petition under section 446(2)(b) was maintainable, and the official liquidator was not confined to filing a suit.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition was liable to court fee as on a suit or only as an application under the Court-fees Act.

Analysis: Once the petition was held to be maintainable under section 446(2)(b), it attracted the court fee prescribed for an application presented to the High Court under the Companies Act for taking judicial action other than an order for winding up. The petition was therefore governed by article 1(d) of Schedule II to the Court-fees Act and not by ad valorem court fee applicable to a money suit.

Conclusion: The fixed court fee paid on the petition was correct, and no ad valorem fee was payable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on both preliminary objections, and the company petitions under section 446(2)(b) were validly entertained with proper court fee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Companies Act expressly confers concurrent jurisdiction to entertain a claim by or against a company in liquidation, a money claim may be proceeded with by petition under section 446(2)(b), and the court fee payable is that applicable to such an application rather than to a suit.

---