https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98304 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. en-us Wed, 10 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:07:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98304 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 10 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98304