HIMALAYA BANK LTD Vs. L ROSHAN LAL MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of cases Nos. 16, 109 and 119 in C. O. No. 18 of 1960 as a common question of law relating to the jurisdiction of this Court is involved. Himalaya Bank Limited instituted a petition in this Court against 259 respondents under Sections 45-M and 45-D of the Banking Companies Act for settlement of the list of debtors. In this petition, it was prayed that the petitioner-bank may be allowed to settle list of its debtors in respect of various amounts shown due from them and payment orders should be passed against the respondents. The petitioner-bank is working under the scheme of arrangement sanctioned by this Court on 21st of August, 1959 in L. M. 39 of 1958 in Civil Original No. 126 of 1958. It was alleged that the names of the respondents were borne on the register of the members as holders of shares in the Bank and that a call of the unpaid share capital of Rs. 10/- on every share was made from its shareholders but respondents failed to make payment of the call money which was due from them. Under Clause 4 of the scheme, the shares of which Calls in arrears are not paid within two months after the date of the sanction of the scheme, shall stand forfeited and consequently these shares stood forfeited on 21st of October, 1959, but despite the forfeiture, the liability of the respondents to pay the arrears continued and the arrears are due from them as debt. It was also averred that the petitioner-bank was working under the scheme sanctioned by this Court and therefore the list of the debtors could be settled with the permission of this Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 45-D of the Banking Companies Act. It was in these circumstances that the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by the Himalaya Bank. The respondents in each of the three cases raised an objection questioning the jurisdiction of this Court, under the Banking Companies Act.

(2.) I have heard arguments on behalf of the parties.

(3.) The contention of the respondents rests on interpretation of Sections 45-D and 45-M of the Banking Companies Act (No. X of 1949). Section 45-D Subsection (1) provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court may settle in the manner hereinafter provided a list of debtors of a banking company which is being wound up. The argument of the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents is that the bank is under a scheme and us such it cannot be said that it is being "wound up."