P L D 1966 Dacca 151 (PLP)

(1). Where a winding up order is made or has been made in respect of a banking company, no suit or other legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal, in respect of which the High Court has jurisdiction under this Ordinance and which is' pending in any other Court immediately before the com mencement of this Ordinance or the date of the order for the winding‑up of the Banking company, which ever is later, shall be proceeded with except in the manner hereinafter provided." It is true that it is a suit made in respect of a Banking Company which is being wound up and over which the High Court has jurisdiction. But it does not fulfil the other require ment. The suit was instituted in December 1962, and a few months earlier, the Ordinance was promulgated in June 1962. It is f not a suit which was pending in a Court before the commencement of this Ordinance or before the order of winding‑up in November 1952. Therefore, the Money suit in question is not contemplated under subsection (1) of section

62. Subsection (2) itself, however, is subject to the exceptions enumerated in the subsections which follow it. Since it is clear that subsection (1) itself does not apply to the suit in question it is not very necessary to discuss the exceptions to the prohibition contained in subsection (1). I will, however, for the‑sake of completeness of the picture briefly refer to subsection (2) which is as follows: "The official liquidator shall, within three months from the date of .the winding‑up order or the commencement of this Ordinance whichever is later or such further time as the High Court may allow, submit to the High Court a report containing a list of all such pending proceedings together with particulars thereof." The words `such pending proceedings' occurring in subsection (2) make it clear that the reference is to a proceeding contemplated under subsection (1) of section

62. When subsection (1) of section 62 does not apply to the suit, in question, it is logical that subsection (2) also will not apply. I will now refer to sub section (3) which reads as follows: "On receipt of a report under subsection (2) the High Court may, if it so thinks fit, give the parties, concerned an opportunity to show cause why the proceedings should not be transferred to itself and after making an inquiry in such manner as may be provided by rules made under section 79, it shall make such order as it deems fit transferring to itself all or such of the pending proceedings as may be specified in the order and such proceedings shall thereafter be disposed of by the High Court." Opening words of subsection (3) refer to subsection (2) and make it clear that subsection (3) will only deal with cases in respect of which a report, under subsection (2) can be made. Since it has been already seen that it cannot be made in respect of this money suit, as it was not pending at the time of the commencement of this Ordinance, subsection (3) also does not apply. It is now to be considered whether the wide import of subsection (4) of the Ordinance can be of any avail, sub section (4) is in the following terms: "If any proceeding pending in a Court is not so transferred to the High Court under subsection (3) such proceeding shall be continued in the Court in which the proceeding was pending." Subsection (4) specifically speaks of subsection (3) and provides that if a case is not so transferred under subsection (3) it shall continue in the Court where it was proceeding. So this permis sion of continuation in the same Court applies to a proceeding, contemplated under subsection (3) and the said money suit not being visualised under that subsection, no benefit of the permis sion of continuation s provided in subsection 4 can be derived. The concluding subsection (5) of section 62 relates to a proceeding pending in appeal before the Supreme Court or High Court and I need hardly add that subsection (5) has no application to the money suit in question. I, therefore, find myself unable to make an order under section 62 transferring this case to the High Court as the power given under the said section can be exercised only in respect of the suit or proceeding contemplated under the said section. It is, however, clear from the statement of the claim as set out in Annexure `A' of the petition, that such a claim shall be entertained and decided by the High Court in its exclusive jurisdic tion in this behalf. It is open to the Official Liquidator to bring this claim before the High Court for its adjudication under section 61 read with the provisions of section 63 of the Ordinance which give powers to the High Court to settle list of debtor which can be filed within a period of 6 months from the date of winding‑up order or the commencement of this Ordinance or when leave is granted by the High Court even after the expiry of 6 months. Since the case is specifically provided for in the statute, it is not necessary to fall back on the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Miscellaneous Case No. 99 of 1963, Was also instituted after the commencement of this Ordinance. That being so, no order of transfer can be made in respect of that case as well for the reasons as stated above. In the result, the prayers for transferring the aforesaid Money Suit No. 103 of 1962, as well as the Miscellaneous Case No. 99 of 1963, are rejected. The costs of this application will come out of the assets of the Company. K. B. A. Application rejected.