Judgment :- RAJAMANNAR, C.J. Hoosen Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. is admittedly a public limited company registered in Calcutta. It has got a branch functioning at Madras. The Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property passed an order on 22nd February, 1950, which concludes thus : "Hence considering the above circumstances, I declare the firm of Hoosen Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. in Madras as evacuee property under Section 2 (f) of the Ordinance and will be notified accordingly." * There is some obvious confusion here. It is only property that can be declared to be evacuee property and a firm as such is not property. It must be again pointed out that there is a very important difference between a limited company and a firm. The circumstances which, in the opinion of the Assistant Custodian, justified the order which he passed were that 96 out of 121 shareholders of the company were in Pakistan and they were evacuees under Section 2(d) (i) of the Administration of Evacuees Property Ordinance, 1949 Assuming that the majority of the shareholders of the company could be held to be evacuees within the meaning of Section 2(d) (i) of the Ordinance, the question as : whether the Ordinance itself is applicable to this case. Admittedly these 96 shareholders were not residents of Madras before they migrated to Pakistan, which fact is denied by the counsel for the petitioners. The company was registered in Calcutta and it is the High Court at Calcutta that would be the Court having jurisdiction over that company. Now either the Ordinance nor Act XXXI of 1950 which replaced the Ordinance extends to West Bengal. It follows therefore that the company itself could not be declared to be an evacuee under either the Ordinance or the Act, though we entertain considerable doubt whether a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act would fall within the definition of "an evacuee". The fact that there is a branch of public limited company situate in Madras cannot empower the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property in Madras to take proceedings under the Ordinance or the Act in respect of a company situated in West Bengal. Obviously, the dividends, if any, would be distributed only from the registered office at Calcutta and presumably the transactions of the branch offices, if there are many, would also be taken into account before arriving at the net profit or loss. Obviously, the dividends, if any, would be distributed only from the registered office at Calcutta and presumably the transactions of the branch offices, if there are many, would also be taken into account before arriving at the net profit or loss. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property had no jurisdiction to pass the order that he didThere was an appeal from his order to the Custodian who confirmed the order of the Assistant Custodian. He held that since the vast majority of the shareholders of the "firm" were in Pakistan, the order of the Assistant Custodian "declaring the firm to be an evacuee firm and taking over its properties" is correct. This obviously wrong. The Assistant Custodian at Madras cannot take over properties belonging to a company registered to Calcutta, i.e., in West Bengal, to which neither the Ordinance nor the Act extends. Then the Custodian went on to make a curious order, namely, that "the share of the 25 non-evacuee shareholders in the net assets of the firm will be refunded to them, but they cannot do any business in the name of the firm in this district." * Evidently, the Custodian did not realise that in effect he was ordering the winding up of the company. He had no jurisdiction to pass any such order and any proceeding for having the company wound up must be taken only in the High Court at Calcutta. His order also must be, and is hereby, quashed. There will be no order as to costs Order quashed.