TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (11) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the said order. The prayer in the said execution petition was that the movable property of the judgment-debtor should be attached. The judgment-debtor appeared and filed a counter. His principal contention, with which I am concerned, was that the District Court has no jurisdiction to execute the order as it is not a company court within the meaning of section 3 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (VII of 1913), hereinafter called "The Act". The District Court rejected this contention and directed execution of the order. It is this view that is now questioned in this appeal. The principal contention of the learned advocate for the appellant is that the District Court is not a court within the meaning of section 3 of the Act and, consequently, it cannot execute any order calling upon the judgment-debtor to pay the call money passed by the Madras High Court in liquidation proceedings. In support of this contention he relied upon Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation v. Jai Karan Lal AIR 1927 Pat. 182. In order to appreciate the implication of this contention, it is necessary to read a few provisions of the Act. Section 3 reads as follows: "(1) The court having jurisdictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ict Court to exercise all or any of the jurisdictions conferred upon the High Court under the Act. It is stated before me that under the said proviso the Central Government has not issued any notification constituting anyone of the District Courts in the Stats of Andhra Pradesh as a company court within the meaning of section 3. I will therefore take it that it is the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which is the company coyrt under section 3 of the Act. The three sections 199 to 201 relate to the enforcement of the order passed by the Company court. Section 200 states that an order passed by one company court can be enforced by any other company court in India in the same manner in all respects as if such order had been made by the company court that is required to enforce the same. This provision therefore empowers the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to enforce any order passed in pursuance of liquidation proceedings by the Madras High Court, which is a company court in so far as that State is concerned. It also lays down that such an order shall be enforced in the same manner in all respects as if that order was made by this court. Section 199 states that all orders made by a company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. Section 39 authorises the court to send the decree for execution -to another court in cases where the person against whom a decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the transferee court. Section 39(2) undoubtedly requires that the court, which passed a decree, may of its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate court of competent jurisdiction. The question of competency of jurisdiction of the transferee court has to be determined in reference to the execution of the order as if it is a decree passed in the civil suit and not in reference to section 3 of the Companies Act as is urged by the learned advocate for the appellant before me. I have already stated that section 199 of the Act lays down that the order can be executed in the same manner as if it was a decree passed by this court on the civil side. When that order is transferred for execution to the District Court, what has to be seen is whether the amount involved in the order for the realisation of which the order is transferred for execution to the transferee court falls within the pecuniary jurisdict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to say company court, when once the certified copy is received by the company court, the company court has jurisdiction to either directly execute it itself or send it for execution to a subordinate court in the same manner as it sends its decrees for execution passed in civil suits to the subordinate court. It is not, therefore, necessary that the transferee court also should be a company court. Any such contention would practically amount to flying in the face of section 199. It is difficult to accept the contention that the expression "in the same manner" relates only to the procedure and does not authorise the District Court to execute the order. Section 199 does not indicate any such distinction. It clearly states that it "may be enforced in the same manner" in which decrees of civil courts made in any suits pending therein may be enforced. The word "manner", in my opinion, is comprehensive enough to include a subordinate court which can execute the order if such an order is transferred for enforcement by this court in its jurisdiction as company court. I am fortified in my view by a decision of the Madras High Court in In the Matter of the Indian Companies Act AIR 1927 Mad. ....