GIRISH BANK LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case two questions arising out of a proceeding for settlement of the list pi creditors in the winding up of a Banking Company known as Girish Bank Ltd. have been referred under Chapter V, Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules of this Court for decision by a Special Bench.

(2.) The two questions which have been referred are as follows:

(3.) It appears that this Girish Bank Ltd. was incorporated as a Banking Company under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at No. 21/A Canning Street, Calcutta. The Bank has 23 branches of which 6 branches are in Eastern Pakisthan, and there were three in the State of Tripura. On 12-1-1948 the Bank suspended payment and on that very day an application was made in the Original Side of this Court for sanction of a scheme and this Court gave the usual preliminary directions. On 8-2-1948 an application for sanction of a scheme was made in the Dacca High Court which also gave certain directions. Ultimately however on 8-12-1949 an order for winding up of the Bank was made by this Court and one Mr. Dipak Chowdhury was appointed Official Liquidator. Sometime prior to this, the three branches in the State of Tripura which was then a foreign territory, were ordered to be wound up by the Tripura Court and the Tripura State Bank Ltd. was appointed the Official Liquidator. On 12-3-1951 Bachawat J., made an order for transfer of the records of the Tripura branches from Agartala to Calcutta, and the learned judge discharged the Tripura State Bank Ltd. and placed the affairs of the Tripura branches in charge of Mr. Dipak Chowdhury and Rai Saheb S. C. Dutt who were appointed joint liquidators. Subsequently there have been further changes in the personnel of the liquidators by orders of this Court made from time to time. The branches of the Bank in Pakisthan have however been functioning at all material time and there has not been any order of winding up by the Dacca High Court in respect of these branches which are within the jurisdiction of that Court. The liquidator appointed by the Calcutta High Court is not in possession of any of the books or assets of these Pakisthan branches. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the liquidator it is alleged that the present liquidator or his predecessors have not been able (suggesting thereby that although efforts were made in that direction) to obtain possession of the books or assets of the bank in Pakisthan and there is total absence of reciprocity between this Court and the High Court at Dacca which has systematically refused to recognise the order of this Court and has treated the branches of the Bank in Pakisthan as distinct and separate entity and have allowed the said branches to function in Pakistan in the normal and usual course in spite of the winding up order made by the Calcutta High Court. It has been further alleged in this affidavit that the High Court at Dacca has persistently refused to allow any facility to take possession of the assets of this Bank in Pakisthan or to bring any assets in the Indian Union for the benefit of the creditors in general. Although no satisfactory evidence in support of all these allegations in the affidavit have been produced before us, it appears from instances of other banks referred to in the affidavit that the relation between the Dacca High Court and this Court has not been one o mutual co-operation. The learned counsel for the liquidator has also laid stress on the difficulties that exist between the Indian Union and Pakisthan in the matter of free exchange of currencies and in the matter of transference of assets from one country to another, in respect of the banks and their branches functioning in the Indian Union and in Pakisthan.