Baboo Lall Jain, J. - (1.) Mr. Sinha appearing on behalf of the present management of the defendant company prays for time to file affidavit-in-opposition until 12th May, 1995. Affidavit-in-opposition, if any, by 12th of May, 1995, affidavit-in-reply, if any, by 6th June, 1995, and the matter is adjourned and will appear as motion adjourned on the 7th of June, 1995. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff bank prayed that for some further protection in the shape of preparation of an inventory of the immovable properties, plant and machinery and other assets mentioned in Schedule X and Schedule Y of the plaint (be) annexed to the petition. Mr. Sinha placed before me the judgment in the case of National Iron and Steel Co. v. Bank of India reported in 82 CWN 1031 . He submitted that in view of the notification issued under section 4 of the West Bengal Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1972, the bank is not entitled to proceed with the suit. The language of the notification which fell for consideration in the said case, was, inter alia, to the following effect : "The operation of all contracts, etc., in force (to which the said relief undertaking is a party or which may be applicable to the said relief undertaking) immediately before the date on which the said relief undertaking was declared as such together with all the rights, privileges, etc., according thereunder before the said date, but excluding contracts, etc., entered into immediately before date on which the said relief undertaking was declared as such by the said relief undertaking with the Government, the Industrial Reconstruction Corporation of India or any other financial institution, shall remain suspended."
(2.) However, the language which has been used in the notification under section 4 of the said Act in the instant case is substantially different from the language used in the aforesaid case which fell for consideration before the Division Bench in the aforesaid reported case. The languages used in the present notification is, inter alia, as follows : "The operation of all contracts, assurance of property, agreements, settlements, awards, standing orders or other instruments in force (to which the said relief undertaking is a party or which may be applicable to the said relief undertaking) immediately before the date on which the said relief undertaking was declared as such, together with all the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accruing or arising thereunder before the said date, but excluding contracts, assurances of property and agreements in force immediately before the said date, between the said relief undertaking and the Government, the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India, any bank or any other financing institution, any workman or any group of workmen, shall remain suspended and shall be deemed to have remained suspended, provided, however, that such suspension shall not prevent and shall be deemed not to have prevented the said relief undertaking."
(3.) Whereas the notification in the said reported judgment provided for exclusion of contracts entered into immediately before date on which the said relief undertaking was declared as such, the instant notification provides for exclusion of contracts, assurances of property and agreements in force immediately before the said date between the said relief undertaking and the Government, the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India, any bank or any other financial institutions. There is no dispute that the plaintiff /petitioner is a financial institution and/or a bank. In my opinion, the instant notification does exclude contracts and/or assurance of property and agreements which were in force immediately before the date of the said notification of the nature as specified. In the premises, I am not satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.;