JUDGMENT - Chainani, C.J. 1. The appellant is a banking company, the Exchange Bank of India and Africa Ltd., through its liquidator. the respondent was a shareholder of this banking company before it went into liquidation. On february 20,1955, a balance order was made as regards the call liability of the the responded in respect of the shares held by him. Under this order he was called upon to pay Rs. 74,125 to the company. As he did not pay the amount, a notice under Order XXI, rue 22, was issued to him. That notice was made absolute in November, 1958. On February 25, 1959, the liquidator got issued an insolvency notice under section 9A of the Presidency Towns Insolvency ;Act. This notice called upon the respondent to pay Rs. 74,125 or to furnish security for the payment of this sum within 35 days after service of the notice. This notice was saved upon the responded on August 15,1959. On September 14, 1959, he took out a notice or motion or settling aside the insolvency notice. Section IIof the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act states that the court shall not have jurisdiction at make an order of adjudication, unless the debtor, within a year before the date of the presentation of the insolvency petition, has ordinarily resided or had a dwelling house or has carried on business either in person or through an agent within the limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the court. Rule 3 of the Bombay Insolvency Rules formed by this court provides that the forms in Appendix I shall be used with such Variations as circumstance3s may require. Form 1A is the form prescribed for making an application for the issue of an insolvency notice. Under footnote (b) in paragraph 2 of the form, words have to be inserted showing the courts jurisdiction in terms of section 11 of the Act. The respondent had not resided within the jurisdiction of this court during 12 months before the date of the presentation of the application for the issue of the insolvency notice. It was, therefore, contended by the respondent that the court had no jurisdiction to issue the insolvency notice. This continuation was accepted by Mr. Justice K.K.Desai, who heard the notice of motion. It was, therefore, contended by the respondent that the court had no jurisdiction to issue the insolvency notice. This continuation was accepted by Mr. Justice K.K.Desai, who heard the notice of motion. It was, however, urged before hi by the appellant that even though the court may not have been able to issue the insolvency notice under the processions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and the Rules firmed thereunder, it had jurisdiction to issue such notice under section 45B of the Banking Companies ACt, 1949. This argument was rejected by Mr. Justice Deasi. In the result , therefore, he made absolute the notice o motion taken out by the respondent and set aid the insolvency notice. Against the order made by hi, the company has come in appeal. 2. Mr. Rege, wh appears on behalf of the appellant, has raised two points. He has first urged that the view taken by Mr. Justice Desai that this out had no jurisdiction to issue the insolvency; ;notice because the responded had not resided within its jurisdiction during the period of 12 months before the application for the issue of the notice was made to this court, is ;erroneous. He has also urged that Mr. Justice Deasi was wrong in holding that section 345B did not enable the court to seeue such a notice. He has contended that after the balance order was made against the respondent on February 20, 1955, there was a debt due form the respondent to the applicant omapyn, that the proceeding by way of insolvency notice was resorted to in order to recover the debt due to the company, that it was consequently a proceeding for the realization of the asset of the banking company that therefore it related to the winding up of the company, and that consequently this court alone had jurisdiction to entertain the application of the issue of the insolvency notice. Mr. Nariman, who appears on behalf of the responded, has on the other hand contended that the main question, which the court has to decide it a notice of motion for setting aside an insolvency notice, is whether the debtor has shown sufficient cause for setting aside th;e notice. Mr. Nariman, who appears on behalf of the responded, has on the other hand contended that the main question, which the court has to decide it a notice of motion for setting aside an insolvency notice, is whether the debtor has shown sufficient cause for setting aside th;e notice. He has urged that the principle question, which the court has to decide in such cases in whether an act o insolvency was committed, and that consequently such a proceeding cannot be said to relate to the winding up of the company. Mr. Nariman has also contended that section 45B cannot be availed o in exaction proceedings He has urged that an insolvency proceeding is not a civil proceeding and that consequently section 45B will not apply to such a proceeding. He has further contended that section 45B will to apply to such a proceeding. He has further contended that section 45B applies only in cases of proceedings taken under this section and not in cases of proceedings instituted under the provisions of some other law. 3. Section 45A to 45X are contained n part IIIA of the Banking Companies ACt, the heading of which is "Special provisions for Speedy Disposal of Winding Up Proceedings"./ Section 45A sates that the provision of this parts and the rules make thereunder shall have effect no with standing anything inconsistent therewith contained in the companies ACt 1956 or the Code of Civil procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure or any; other law for the time being in force or any instuent having effect by virtue of any; such law. The processions contained in section45A and other section in this part are, therefore, to take effect notwithstanding anything contained if any other law. The processions contained in section45A and other section in this part are, therefore, to take effect notwithstanding anything contained if any other law. Section 45B provides as follows : :The high Court shall, save as otherwise expressly; provided in section 45C, have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide any claim made by or against a banking company which is being wound up (including claims by or against any of its branches in India) or any application made under section 391 of the Companies ACt, 1956, by or in respect of a banking company or any queasier priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise in the occurs of the winding up of a banking company, whether such ;clatter question has arisen or arises or such application has ;been made or is made before or after the date of the order for the winding up of the banking accompany or before or after the commencement of the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1953." 4. This section confers exclusive jurisdication on the High Court in respect of the matters referred to therein. The object of these two sections and the other sections contained in this part is to expedite the winding ;up of a banking company and to ensure speedy realisation of the assets of the banking company so as to effect expeditious and effective disturbuion of the assets of the banking company amongst its various credits. For this purpose all powers are concentrated in one court and the High court alone is empowered to decide all matters relating to the winding up of a banking company no with standing any thing to the contrary contained in any other law. The High Court is thus vested with extra-territorial jurisdiction and it may; decide matters relation to the winding up of a banking company, wherever the cause of action may arise and even if the parties affected reside outside its jurisdiction. 5. The High Court is thus vested with extra-territorial jurisdiction and it may; decide matters relation to the winding up of a banking company, wherever the cause of action may arise and even if the parties affected reside outside its jurisdiction. 5. The matters, which under section 45B the High Court is competent to entertain and decide, are (1) any claim made by or against a banking company which is being wound up, (2) any application made under section 391 of the Companies ACt, 1956, (3) any question of proprieties and (4) any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may related to or arise in the court of the winding up of a banking company. The words "relate to" are very wide and so are the words "any question whatsoever". the legislature has used very ;comprehensive language in order to emphasize it s intention that every; question affecting a banking company wherever and in whichever proceeding it may arise, should be decided by the High Court, if it satisfies one condition, viz., that it arise in or greater to proceedings for the winding up of the company. 6. The primary function of the liquidator of a company in liquidation is to realise th;e assets of the company;y for the purpose of distributing them amongst its credited. Any action, which the liquidator takes in order to recover the companys assets, can therefore be aid to relate to the winding up of the company. This view has been taken in Associated banking ;Corporation v. Nazaralli. In that case it was held that a suit filed by the official liquidator to recover a claim due to a banking company in liquidation form its debtor is a matter relating to or arising out of the winding up of the banking company, and that, therefore, the High Court alone has jurisdiction to try such a suit under section 45B of the banking Companies Act. In an insolvency notice the debtor is called upon to pay the amount of the debt referred to therein or to furnish security for its payment . In an insolvency notice the debtor is called upon to pay the amount of the debt referred to therein or to furnish security for its payment . In the notice, which was issued to the respondent, he was also asked to pay within 35 days from the date of the service of the notice the amount due form him ;to the appellant company or to furnish security for its payment.Such a notice is, therefore, taken out for the purpose of realising in whole or in part the debt due to the company. Consequently, it can be said to relate to the winding up of the company. It will, therefore, fall under (4) above and the high Court alone will be competent to issue such a notice, even though the debtor may; ;not be residing within its jurisdiction. 7. One of the question, which under section 45B the High court alone is competent to decide, is the question of priorities. Under section 7 of the Presidency towns Insolvency At and the corresponding provisions contained in the Provincial Insolvency Act, the insolvency court alone has power ;to decide all questions of priorities. If tit is held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an insolvency petition, in case n which the debtor of a banking company resides outside the limits of its jurisdiction, the question of priorities will have to be decided by the insolvency court and not by the High Court.This will be contrary to the provisions of section 45B , under which all questions of priorities in respect of claim s by or against the banking company are to be decided by the High Court. 8. The view, which were are inclined to take, would also result in carrying out the object of the legislature, which is to provide for a machinery for the expeditious and speedy disposal of proceedings liquidation. A banking company may have a large number of debtors and if insolvency application were entertained by the large number of counts, within the jurisdiction of which the debtors may be residing, the winding up proceedings may be considerable delayed. This will not be in accordance with the scheme of the act, which is to secure speedy termaition of the winding up proceedings. 9. Mr. This will not be in accordance with the scheme of the act, which is to secure speedy termaition of the winding up proceedings. 9. Mr. Nariman has urged that section 45B applies only to proceeding taken under this section and not to proceedings taken under some other law, such as the Presidency; ;Towns Insolvency Act. He has relied on the observation of the Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chandra Pal v. Associated Bank of Tripura Ltd., that the normal proceeding under section345B would be a proceeding by way of an application. Section 45B, however, applies which any; question of law or fact, which may; relate to or arise in the course of the winding up of a banking company, has to be decided. It, therefore, such a question arises in any;legal proceeding, then it is to be determined by the High Court under section 45B and it is immaterial under what provision of law the proceeding wa instituted. This is clear form section 45A, which provides that section 45B would apply, notwithstanding anything continued in any other law for the time being in force. There is also no force n the argument of Mr. Nariman that an insolvency; proceeding is not a civil proceeding. Section 45B does not also restrict the jurisdiction of the High Court to civil proceedings only. 10. Mr. Nariman has also contended that section 45B does not apply; to a notice of motion of setting aside an insolvency notes, because n such a motion the principal question, which is to be decided, is whether there is sufficient cause for setting aside the insolvency notice. that may be so, but if the whole proceeding can be said to relate to the winding up of a company, then section45B will i terms apply. As I have pointed out above, by the insolvency; notice the debtor is called upon to pay the debt specified. consequently, in taking out such a notice the liquidator of the company is making an attempt to recover the debt due to the company. It can, therefore, be said to relate to the winding up the company. 11. Mr. nariman has reled on section 45D and 45T and has urged that section 45B cannot apply to execution proceedings. Sub-section (5) of section 45D says that every order made under this section shall be deemed to be a decree in a suit. It can, therefore, be said to relate to the winding up the company. 11. Mr. nariman has reled on section 45D and 45T and has urged that section 45B cannot apply to execution proceedings. Sub-section (5) of section 45D says that every order made under this section shall be deemed to be a decree in a suit. Sub-section (1) of section45T provides that all orders made in any civil proceeding by; a High court ma;y be enforced in the same manner in which decrees of such court made in any; suit pending therein may be enforce. Mr. Nariman has ;urged that as the provisions contained in section 45D and 45T lay done the manner in which the orders made by the High court are to be executed, section45B will not apply to execution proceedings. this argument cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain v. S.B Co. in which it wa observed : There has been some faint argument before us that the questions that arise in exaction in this case and particularly the questions relating to attachment which has been effected by the Bombay High Court, are not questions which fall within the scope of (1) [1955] 25 Comp. Cas. 19 (S.C.). (2) [1956] 26 Comp. CAs. 280 287 (S.C.). section 45B. In our opinion this contention is so obviously; untenable, in view of the very wide an comprehensive language of the section, that it requires no more than to be maintained ;and rejected." 12. Mr. Nariman has also urged that the view, which we are taking, might result in hardship to debtor, who reside outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. the same argument was advanced in Associate banking Corporation v. Nazaralli, and wa no accepted. At pages 27-28 it wa observed : "But when one releases once age the object with with this law was passed, it is clear that all powers were intended to the concentrated anyone court for the purposes of winding up, and irrepective of the territorial aspect to of the matter, irrespective, of the fact that creditors or contributories might be outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, the legislature was emphasizing more the neessity of expeditiously carrying out the winding up of a banking company than any inconvenience that might be caused to creditors or debtors or contributories." 13. We are accordingly of the opinion that when an insolvency notice it taken out by a banking ;company in liquidation, the matter relates to the sending up of the company and consequently the High Court alone can entertain and decide the application for the issue of sub a notice, notwithstanding the fact that the debtor did not reside within the limits of its jurisdiction, The Orissa High Court has taken the sum view in the as of an insolvency petitioner made by a debtor of a banking company in H. Naik v.Jitendranath Das. 14. In this view, it is not necessary to consider the other question whether the issue of the insolvency notice in this case was improper, because the respondent did not reside within the jurisdiction of this court during 12 months before the presentiation of the application for the issue of the insolvency notice. 15. The appeal, its therefore, allowed and the order passed by Mr. Justice Desai is set aside. the period mentioned in the notice of insolvency taken out by the appellant for compliance therewith is extended until August 18, 1961. 16. The respondent should pay the costs of the appellant, both of the appeal and of the hearing before Mr. Justiace Desai, 17. Appeal allowed.