GATTANI, J. - (1.) THIS order will decide point for determination No. 1 which reads as under : - "has this Court jurisdiction to entertain the application. "
(2.) THIS application has been filed by the Official Liquidator of Messrs. Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Limited Kishangarh (in liquidation) under sec. 446 (2) of the Companies Act for the recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the non-applicant from the disputed premises. In para No. 10 of the application it has been said that by virtue of sec. 446 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956, this Court has exclusive jurisdic-tion to try and entertain any suit or claim or any proceedings by or against this Company (In liquidation ). The non-applicant in reply has not admitted para 10 of the application. That has led to the framing of above point for determination. However, when parties were heard on this point it was urged by the learned counsel for the non-applicant that an application under sec. 446 (2) is no doubt enter-tainable by this Court, but in the present case the Official Liquidator should have filed a suit against the non-applicant under sec. 446 (2) (a) of the Act and not the present application for the reliefs claimed. The jurisdiction of this Court to hear that suit is also not denied by the non-applicant. So the point which remains for consideration is whether the Official Liquidator should have filed a suit for the reliefs claimed in the application. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that the relationship between the parties being that of landlord and tenant, the Official Liquidator should have filed a regular suit with prescribed court fee for arrears of rent and eviction of the non-applicant from the disputed premises, as the questions of law arising out of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. The argument from the other side is that the Official Liquidator could have filed either a suit under sec. 446 (2) (a) of the Act or a claim in the present form under sec. 446 (2) (b) of the Act for the reliefs sought for and if Official Liquidator has preferred to file the claim in the form of an application he cannot be compelled to change this application into a suit or that his application cannot be entertained. It has been further urged that with the amendment of sec. 446 of the Act in the year 1960 by insertion of cls. (b), (c) and (d) in sub-sec. 2 of sec. 446 the scope of this sub-section has been much widened and the object for this is to get claims by or against a company in liquidation settled more expeditiously and in a summary manner by preferring the claim in the form of an application. It has then been contended that the present claim is quite simple and no complicated question of law are involved in it. Of course the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act will be applicable to this application as well and the rights and liabilities of the parties shall be governed under the provisions of that Act. . In order to appreciate the ticklish point involved in this case relevant portion of sec. 446 of the Act is reproduced : - "446. Suit stayed on winding up order : - (2) The Court which is winding up the company shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of - (a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company ; (b) any claim made by or against the company (including claims by or against any of its branches in India) ; (c) any application made under sec. 391 by or in respect of the company ; (d) any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, Whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise in course of the winding up of the company: whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted or is instituted, or such claim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the company; or before or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960. (3) Any suit or proceeding by or against the company which is pending in any Court other than that in which the winding up of" the company is proceeding may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force be transferred to and disposed of by that Court. " It might be stated here that clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub-sec. (2) have been added by Amending Act No. LXV of 1960. Whereas clause (a) refers to any 'suit or proceeding by or against the company' clause (b) speeks of any such claim. The relevant dictionary meanings of the words claim and suit are as follows: - "claim" - to demand or ask for as rightfully belonging or due to one; a demand for something rightfully or allegedly due; a right or title to something; "suit" - a persuit; action of suing; action to secure justice in a court of law; attempt to recover a right or claim through legal action ; an act of suing, pleading or requesting. Vide Webstor's New World Dictionary (Second College Edition ). Apart from the technical difference which these words have come to denote there appears to be no fundamental difference in their meaning. We know a suit is filed with the presenilation of a plaint; for raising a claim a mere application will do. It is, however, to be borne in mind that inspite of the provisions for 'a suit or proceeding by or against the Company' the legislature thought fit to introduce "any claim made by or against the Company (including claims by or against any of its branches in India" as sub-clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of 446. In my opinion this was done in order that ordinary claims by or against Company may be disposed of in a quicker manner, i. e. , summarily and while doing so the Court may not have to follow a lengthy procedure which it has to follow while deciding a suit. Next comes the question what is the significance in retaining the wordings of clause (a) when the word 'claim' was introduced in clause (b ). What I have understood the import of both the clauses (a) and (b) is that ordinarily the court is to decide the claims summarily, but if it finds that a particular claim is complicated and it would not be in the interest of justice to decide it in a summary manner, it may direct that the claim will be converted into a suit and then it will decide it following the procedure laid down in C. P. C. So far a claim remains in the form of application only and is not converted as a suit the Court is not bound to follow the elaborate procedure laid down in C. P. C for purpose of deciding a suit. Of course if a party from the very beginning files a suit, i. e. , if from the very beginning a suit is brought by or against a Company, it shall be tried as a suit only. In this case it was for Official Liquidator to opt whether he was to file a suit or a claim only; the difference being in form only and not in substance. The Official Liquidator decided to file a claim only. Looking to the facts of dispute and the points for determination, I am of the view that complicated questions of fact and law are not at all involved in this case and as such the question of giving any direction to the Official Liquidator for converting the claim into a suit does not arise. Of course while deciding the claim care will be taken that it is decided after taking into consideration the different provisions of law relied upon by the parties.
(3.) THE dispute raised by the Official Liquidator regarding arrears of rent and eviction of tenant can be treated as claim under sec. 446 (2) (b) of the Act and decided as such vide Official Liquidator vs. Bhagwat Saran Garg (l ). For all what has been stated above it is held that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the application. This point is, therefore, decided in favour of the applicant. .;