- (1.) THE Punjab Finance Private Ltd. (in liquidation), through its official liquidator filed the present petition under Section 446 (2) read with Section 468 of the Companies Act; 1956, for the recovery of Rs. 20,318. 67 from the respondents. The claim is based on a loan raised by the respondents from the petitioner-company on the security of a vehicle on hire-purchase basis. After the issues were framed and the case was fixed for the evidence of the parties, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 made an application for the framing of an additional issue to the following effect: " Whether the claim petition for recovery of the amount from the respondents is in the nature of a suit and as such ad valorem court-fee should be paid? "
(2.) ARGUMENTS have been heard on this issue which has been treated as preliminary. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that any action by the official liquidator for the recovery of the amount from the debtors of the company amounts to a suit and, therefore, ad valorem court-fee on the amount claimed should be paid as prescribed in Article 1, Schedule I, of the Court Fees Act, 1870. According to the learned counsel, for deciding such claims or suits, the jurisdiction of the High Court as a winding-up court and all the subordinate courts, which have the jurisdiction to try such suits, is concurrent and the nature of the proceedings taken by the official liquidator does not change with the forum in which they are filed. The learned counsel relies on a judgment of a learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court in In re Osier Electric Lamp Manufacturing Company Ltd. , [1967] 37 Comp Cas 306wherein the following observations occur : " The words ' suit has been instituted ', ' claim or question has arisen ' in Sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Section 446 refer to suit or application or claim or question pending in a court other than the winding-up court. The words (is instituted ', ' arises ' or ' is made ' in Sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) again suggest that such a suit or claim or application was made after the date of winding-up of the company. The words ' made before or after the order for winding-up of company' again clearly suggest that it contemplates not only suits, claims or applications made before but also after the winding-up of the company in a court other than the winding-up court. The words ' before or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960' make it crystal clear that suits, claims and applications may be made, even after the amendment in 1960, in courts other than the winding-up court. "
(3.) THESE observations do not deal with the matter of court-fee but only lay down that the jurisdiction of the High Court is concurrent with any other competent court as far as suits are concerned. I respectfully agree with the observations, but it is of no help to the learned counsel on the point in issue.;