- (1.) BOTH the appeals are taken up and summarily disposed of. These are from two orders dated 31-3-2006 and 17-10- 2006, by the former of which the appellant's Company was directed to wind up and by the later of which the application for recall of the winding up order made by the Company in the Court below was rejected.
(2.) THE appellant raised a point of jurisdiction of the Company Court at Allahabad. Reliance is placed on the fact that the registered office of the appellant is at Lucknow. Further reliance is placed on the root case of Nasiruddin reported at AIR 1976 SC page 331, which gave, with respect a comprehensive interpretation of Clause 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation Order, 1948. THE said clause being Clause 14 is quoted below: " (14) THE new High Court and the Judges and Division Courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint: Provided that unless Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such Judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice, may from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow, in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas of Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court : Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad. " The decision in that case vests the Lucknow Bench with exclusive jurisdiction in regard to cases which arise in respect of places, which were part of the erstwhile Oudh. This view is repeated in a later Supreme Court case reported at 2005 (1) Supreme Court Cases page 73, i. e. , in the case of Manju Verma.
(3.) IT is the admitted position before us that even if orders issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice from time to time are considered, the last of such orders dated 5th of August, 1975 would compel the filing of a winding up petition of a company having its registered office at Lucknow at the Lucknow Bench. Such filing before the Allahabad seat of the Allahabad High Court would be erroneous. This has been opined by a Division Bench judgment given in the case of M/s. Kamal Infosys Limited, reported at 2005 (59) A. L. R. 492. In the said judgment a pronouncement was made at paragraph 21 that a judgment of a Division Bench given in respect of the very appellant company before us was per-incuriam. That judgment, which has been held to be per-incuriam in its turn is reported at AIR 1997 (Allahabad) page 424, (M/s. Sumac International Ltd. v. M. S. PNB Capital Services Ltd. In that judgment the Division Bench had opined that institution of winding up petition before the Allahabad Bench was correct and in passing that opinion it had not considered the aforesaid last notification dated 5th August, 1975, which gave the Lucknow Bench jurisdiction to proceed up to the stage of passing of the winding up order. The 1997 case dealt with this very appellant, this very winding up petition and this very point of the Allahabad-Lucknow split of jurisdiction.;