Delhi High Court has rejected the plea that the Company Court must exercise its jurisdiction to supervise the Scheme of Arrangements, to evict tenants of premises which are not owned by the company. Winding up proceedings were initiated against the company and with a view to realize assets Scheme of Arrangements was accepted by the court. During the pendency of the winding up proceedings and before the sanctioning of the Scheme by the Court, dues of all creditors were settled. However, several applications by third parties regarding retrieving possession of properties of which the Company had been a tenant and which the Company had been using for its business, were filed. It was argued that the new tenants were lawful tenants of the disputed premises, after the Company was evicted from the premises. However, it was the contention of the Company that for proper implementation of the Scheme, directions under Section 392 of the Companies Act were necessary and that the relevant clause under the Scheme which dealt with the jurisdiction of the Court provided that “any claim by or against the Company shall be instituted before the Company Court.” 

The Delhi High Court however held that Section 446 of the Companies Act was not applicable in this case as there was no winding-up order. The Court in this regard observed that except Section 446 there is no other power under the Companies Act, authorizing the Company Court to exercise universal jurisdiction and adjudicate disputes concerning third parties’ transactions with the company. Further, noticing that jurisdiction of the Companies Court was also excluded to decide matters which are to be tried by Tribunals and Courts of exclusive jurisdiction, it was held that there was no restriction with regard to the maintainability of eviction proceedings before the lawfully constituted tribunals which have the relevant jurisdiction to try them. Noting that the disputed events in question took place before the sanctioning of the Scheme under Section 391, it was held that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the said dispute. [Gurkirpal Singh and Ors. v. Raminder Pal Singh and Ors. - Co. Appl. 19- 25/2005, decided on 29-2-2016, Delhi High Court]