https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98520 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. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:35:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98520 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 15 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98520