<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1951 (7) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301136</link>
    <description>Sections 45A and 45B of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 confer exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court having territorial control over the bank&#039;s registered office to decide claims and questions of law or fact arising in winding up. Section 11 further provides that pending proceedings arising out of or in the course of such winding up stand transferred to that Court automatically, as if the Act had applied when the proceeding began. A partition proceeding continued after a winding-up order was treated as a proceeding in the course of winding up because the liquidator became a necessary party and leave was required for continuation. The subordinate court therefore lacked jurisdiction to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:54:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=672865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (7) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301136</link>
      <description>Sections 45A and 45B of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 confer exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court having territorial control over the bank&#039;s registered office to decide claims and questions of law or fact arising in winding up. Section 11 further provides that pending proceedings arising out of or in the course of such winding up stand transferred to that Court automatically, as if the Act had applied when the proceeding began. A partition proceeding continued after a winding-up order was treated as a proceeding in the course of winding up because the liquidator became a necessary party and leave was required for continuation. The subordinate court therefore lacked jurisdiction to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>