Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by a debtor of a banking company which is being wound-up by this Court under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Official Liquidator who represents the Bank, the first respondent, obtained a decree against the appellant and others on the mortgage documents executed by the appellant and others. After the institution of the suit which gave rise to the above decree the appellant filed an application under S.15 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Debt Act'). The Official Liquidator then moved this Court for stay of the proceedings under S.16 and this Court stayed those proceedings. The appellant then moved the winding-up court for permission to proceed with the application under S.15 of the Debt Act. The winding-up court by the order under appeal directed the removal of the first respondent from the party array in the proceedings under S.15 of the Debt Act initiated by the appellant. 2. Counsel on behalf of the appellant has contended that the proceedings under S.15 of the Debt Act are akin to proceedings in insolvency, that proceedings in insolvency do not involve any claim at any rate when those proceedings are initiated by a debtor seeking to be adjusted an insolvent against a banking company and therefore that S.45-B of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is not attracted there is no impediment to proceed with the application under S.15 of the Debt Act. Reliance has been mainly placed on the decision of this Court in J aim Ali and Others v. Narayana Pillai and Others (1961 KLT. 174) where Justice Raman Nayar as he then was took the view that insolvency proceedings initiated by a debtor do not involve any claim against a banking company in liquidation and that those proceedings cannot be said to relate to matters in winding-up. The learned judge was dealing with a batch of cases arising from two petitions in insolvency and two petitions under S.15 of the Debt Act. The conclusion was that there was no reason whatever to stay the proceedings under S.15 of the Debt Act. The learned judge was dealing with a batch of cases arising from two petitions in insolvency and two petitions under S.15 of the Debt Act. The conclusion was that there was no reason whatever to stay the proceedings under S.15 of the Debt Act. We must however point out that the learned judge also clarified that the proceedings under S.15 of the Debt Act or for that matter, the proceedings in insolvency may reach a stage when it will involve a claim against a banking company in liquidation and that when such stage was reached, the jurisdiction of the insolvency court or the court dealing with the application under S.15 of the Debt Act will cease as the matter will come within S.45-B of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is sufficient to read one part of the judgment of the learned judge in this regard: "It might be that, after the adjudication, claims arise by or against the estate, and if such claims, being disputed or for other reasons, require to be entertained and decided by a court, then doubtless S.45-B would operate to vest exclusive jurisdiction in this court, if the claim is by or against a banking company in liquidation." We may add that the learned judge visualised the two stages in proceedings in insolvency and even in proceedings commenced under S.15 of the Debt Act, a proceeding which ends with an order of adjudication and then proceeds to deal with the claims of the various creditors resulting in further orders settling the debts or settling the claims that have been put forward. The latter stage, the learned judge thought, might involve claims against a banking company in liquidation and that at that stage the insolvency court will cease to have jurisdiction as the jurisdiction for such purposes is vested exclusively with this Court. 3. The decision in Jaini Ali & Others v. Narayana Pillai and Others (1961 KLT. 174) has been approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Thomas John v. Palai Central Bank Ltd. (1961 KLT. 648) and the same is the view that has been taken by the Madras High Court In the matter of, A.R. Sivaramakrishn Chettiar (AIR. 1962 Mad. 75). But authority is not wanting for the proposition that insolvency proceedings cannot be commenced or continued even up to the stage of adjudication against a banking company in liquidation. 648) and the same is the view that has been taken by the Madras High Court In the matter of, A.R. Sivaramakrishn Chettiar (AIR. 1962 Mad. 75). But authority is not wanting for the proposition that insolvency proceedings cannot be commenced or continued even up to the stage of adjudication against a banking company in liquidation. Orissa High Court in the decision in H. Naik, O. L. Puri Bank Ltd v. Jitendranoth Das (AIR. 1954 Orissa 139) took that view and the same is the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. V. Lakshminarayana Sastry v. Vijaya Commercial Bank Ltd. and others (AIR. 1962 A.P.17), of the Patna High Court in the decision In the matter of Chotanagpur Banking Association, Ltd, (AIR. 1969 Patna, 184) and of the Bombay High Court in The Exchange Bank of India and Africa Ltd. v. Laxmi-chand Kuverji Shah (1962 Bombay 223). 4. As far as this Court is concerned, the matter must now be taken to be concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Thomas John v. Palai Central Bank Ltd. (1961 KLT. 648). It is therefore clear that an application by a debtor for adjudging him an insolvent will not involve any claim against the Bank which is being wound-up and no question of stay of those proceedings arises. The question would however arise whether such stay is necessary when those proceedings involve a claim against the banking company which is being wound-up. One such case dealt with by this Court is that in Bank of Commerce Ltd. v. Joseph Abraham (1965 KLT. 1228). Justice Raman Nayar who dealt with this case as well took the view that when a debtor sought stay of execution of the decree passed by the winding-up court, there was a claim against the banking company in liquidation and therefore the stay application moved before the insolvency court should be stayed by an order of the winding-up court. On the facts of this case, it appears to us that the principle of this decision must apply. Under S.15 of the Debt Act, a debtor is entitled to claim free of all debts one-fourth of his properties or property of the value of Rs. 6500/-whichever is less. Such a claim has been put forward by the appellant before the court in which the application under S.15 is pending. Under S.15 of the Debt Act, a debtor is entitled to claim free of all debts one-fourth of his properties or property of the value of Rs. 6500/-whichever is less. Such a claim has been put forward by the appellant before the court in which the application under S.15 is pending. The only property that he scheduled to that application is part of the property that be has mortgaged to the first respondent-Bank and on which mortgage a decree has been obtained by the Official Liquidator. Proceeding with the application under S.15 of the Debt Act would therefore necessarily involve the question as to whether the claim of the appellant that one-fourth of the property must be given to him free of charge should be allowed or not. This is a claim against the Bank in liquidation. Such being the case, S.45-B of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 would be attracted and exclusive jurisdiction having been vested with the High Court, it is not permissible to allow the application under S.15 of the Debt Act being continued in the court in which it is pending. We see therefore no reason to allow the application made by the appellant under S.446 of the Companies Act to continue the proceedings under S.15 of the Debt Act. 5. We accordingly set aside the order under appeal and reject the application of the appellant under S.446 of the Companies Act. 6. This Appeal is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.