VIJENDER JAIN ( 1 ) THIS company appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the order dated March 8, 1985 passed by a Single Judge of this Court in Company Applications Nos. 289/83 and 700/83. By the said impugned order the learned Single Judge ordered that the two references under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act pending before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon be transferred to this Court forthwith. ( 2 ) FACTS leading to the present appeal are that according to the appellant he entered into an agreement by virtue of which an agreement to sell was executed in his favour by Globe Diesels Aid Pvt. Ltd. (for short Globe Diesels ). The alleged agreement was dated 11. 11. 1965. This agreement was alleged to have been excecuted on behalf of Globe Diesels through its the then Chairman Mr. G. S. Anand. It is alleged that on 29. 6. 67 another agreement was executed between M/s Globe Motors Ltd. (for short Globe Motors) and Globe Diesels through one of the Directors R. L. Bamba for the sale of suit land by Globe Diesels to Globe Motors, The aforesaid land along with other land were acquired. It is also alleged that the land in relation to which this agreement was executed between Globe Diesels and the appellant and other land were acquired by Notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 8. 9. 1966 by the State Government. ( 3 ) ON 4. 7. 69 appellant filed an application before the Collector for award of compensation. We will deal in later part of our judgment on. this aspect of the matter. On 8. 7. 69 Globe Motors also filed its claim for compensation and on 22. 7. 69 appellant filed an application under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to enhance the compensa- tion. On 8. 11. 69 reference was made under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by Collector to the District Judge, Gurgaon. In the meanwhile. Globe Motors filed an application being CA No. 192 of 1971 in this Court wherein Globe Motors was directed to approach the Land Acquisition Collector for apportionment. The Collector recalled the earlier reference and made fresh reference under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act including the claim of Globe Motors whereafter an Official Liquidator was also appointed. Globe Motors filed an application being CA No. 192 of 1971 in this Court wherein Globe Motors was directed to approach the Land Acquisition Collector for apportionment. The Collector recalled the earlier reference and made fresh reference under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act including the claim of Globe Motors whereafter an Official Liquidator was also appointed. On 3. 4. 1972 Globe Diesels was wound up. On 14. 12. 72 Globe Diesels made an application before the Company Court with the prayer that the appellant should pay hack to Globe Diesels a sum of Rs. 84,000. 00 paid by the Collector, Gurgaon to the appellant. Then the learned Single Judge of this Court ordered that pending hearing of CA 403/ 80 under Sec. 446 of the Companies Act. 1956 the amount he not withdrawn by the appellant. The said order was confirmed on 9th July, 1982 in CA 32/82. Company Appeal No. 12/82 against the order dated 9. 7. 82 was dismissed. In the circumstances, the appellant filed another application being CA 289/83 for stay of transfer of proceedings. In this back ground the appellant there after moved Company Court with the prayer that the reference under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act be disposed of before the District Judge, Gurgaon which was dismissed on 8. 3. 85. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by that order the appellant filed the present com- pany appeal. ( 5 ) AT the outset it will be necessary to quote Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 which reads as under:- "dispute as to apportionment-When the amount of compensation has been settled under Sec. 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. " ( 6 ) THE contention of the appellant is that the two references pending before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon under Land Acquisition Act should proceed at Gurgaon whereas Globe Motors- respondent wanted the matter to be decided by the Company Court at Delhi. The dispute between the parties was as to whether the reference should be decided by the Additional District, Judge, Gurgaon or in C. A. 403/80 pending before the Company Court under Sec. 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The dispute between the parties was as to whether the reference should be decided by the Additional District, Judge, Gurgaon or in C. A. 403/80 pending before the Company Court under Sec. 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. According to the counsel for the appellant the expression. court occurring in Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act deals with court under the Land Acquisition Act and not a court as defined under the Companies Act. The word court defined in Sec. 3 (d) of the Land Acquisition Act is, as follows:- the expression court means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the (appropriate. Govern- ment) has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the Court under this Act. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the said definition the appellant contended that the court under the Land Acquisition Act has exclusive jurisdiction and, therefore, the references should not be transferred to Company Judge under sub-section (3 ). of Section 446 of the Companies Act -. In the impugned order according to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant the order of the learned Single Judge directing that the two references under Sec. 30 of the Act pending before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon be trans- ferred to and disposed of by the Company Cour under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 446 of the Companies Act is illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 8 ) THIS case has a chequered history. In CAs Nos. 144/81 and 3232/82, learned Single Judge of this Court on 9th July, 1982 dealt with the facts quite elaborately which were kept in mind while passing the impugned order, in the said applications. the appellant herein was respondent no. 2. It is interesting to note that sometime in 1966 the State Government of Haryana decided to acquire a vast area of land in Ballabhgarh including the land belonging to M/s Globe Diesel Aid. Private Limited in liquidation for planned development of the area. A notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 was published on 8. 9. 69. Notification under Sec. 6 was dated 9. 1. 69 and published on 14. 1. 1969. The award was made on 6. 7. 69. It covered 161 kanals 6 marlas of land belonging to Globe Diesels. A notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 was published on 8. 9. 69. Notification under Sec. 6 was dated 9. 1. 69 and published on 14. 1. 1969. The award was made on 6. 7. 69. It covered 161 kanals 6 marlas of land belonging to Globe Diesels. That comes to approximately 97000 sq. yds. Just one day before the award was announced, that is to say, on 4th July, 1969 the appellant appeared before the Collector and presented an application. He said, in the application, that Diesels had executed an agreement to sell their land to him and a copy of the agreement duly attested by a 1st Class Magistrate was attached. The learned Single Judge who was deciding the aforesaid company applications No. 144/81 and 32/82 had serious doubts about the bona fide of the transactions and it is relevant to quote from the order dated 9th July, 1982 which reads as under:- " Globe Diesel Aid Private Limited is a company which is being wound up. It used town a large area of land in village Ajronda in Ballabhgarh. The land was acquired by the State Government, and compensation has been awarded. The question in these proceedings is as to who is entitled to that money. Although, at present, I am only concerned with two interlocutory applications, the facts have to be narrated in more detial than would normally be necessary. The reason is that there are many strands to the story which have to he interwoven, including much previous litigation extending over more than a decade. Without the necessary background, the present controversy would not. be comprehensible. Globe Diesel Aid Private Limited and Globe Motors Limited were sister concerns. For brevity. I will refer to them as diesel and motors respectively. Both of them are being wound up. The petitions for winding up these companies were made in 1968. The order to wind up Diesels was made on 3rd March 1972. Motors, however, continued to function under a scheme of arrangement for some years. But, ultimately, a winding up order was made on 15th April, 1977. One can now visualise the very curious situation with which the Collector was faced in September. 1969. He had delivered the award on 5th July. l969 and distributed the compensation between Gutti (Appellant herein) and Diesels. A sum of Rs. 84,114. But, ultimately, a winding up order was made on 15th April, 1977. One can now visualise the very curious situation with which the Collector was faced in September. 1969. He had delivered the award on 5th July. l969 and distributed the compensation between Gutti (Appellant herein) and Diesels. A sum of Rs. 84,114. 00 had passed out of his hands to Gutti. Only the sum of Rs. 2. 87,761. 50, being Diesels share, remained with him. The claim made by Motors had not been dealt with at all. Nor the claim made by Roshan Lal Bamba on behalf of Diesels. The demand made by the Income Tax Officer could not be ignored. In addition, it appears that, at this stage, for the first time, the Collector looked at the revenue records. Apart from Diesels they contained two other names. Madan Gopal was re- corded as a co-owner with Diesels, having a l/3rd share in 26 kanals 10 marlas of the land. O. D. Agnihotri was recorded as the lessee of 16 kanals 19 marlas. He had been granted a lease for 99 years by the persons from whom Diesels purchased the land. These two persons had also not been served with notices under section 9 and 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. In these circumstances, the Collector seems to have made some attempt to retrace his steps. It is alleged by O. D. Agnihotri, who is also a party before me, that by a memorandum dated 8th September 1969 the Collector directed Gutti to appear before him on 12th September 1969 and produce documentary proof of his claim . Agnihotri further alleges, that by another letter dated 8th October 1969 the Collector directed Gutti to appear before him on 22nd October 1969 and return the sum of Rs. 84,114. 00 which was now said to have been wrongly paid to him. Although Gutti has denied these allegations in his reply to Agnihotri his counsel said to me; in the course of arguments, that in response to the Collector s letters Gutti appeared before him and filed the original agreement to sell the land executed by Diesels in his favour. According to counsel, this original agreement must have got lost whilst it was in the Collector s office. It is not disputed that Gutti did not return the Rs. 84,114. According to counsel, this original agreement must have got lost whilst it was in the Collector s office. It is not disputed that Gutti did not return the Rs. 84,114. 00 to the Collector, though, of course, he says that he was never required to return it. . . . . . . . . . . It appears that Motors were not aware of the making of this reference by the Collector. They had received no communication from him whatsoever. And, they themselves were in a state of turmoil. The petition for winding up Motors had been filed in March 1968. A scheme of arrangement was approved by Hardy J. on 31st May 1969, but subject to fulfilment of certain conditions by the propounder. Ultimately, in February 1970, the scheme was sanctioned by S. N. Andley, J. and the affairs of the company were put in the charge of a Managing Committee appointed by this court. Thus, between March 1968 and February 1970, there was practically no one looking after the affairs of the company. Motors allege that, after the Managing Committee took charge, they discovered from the records of the company that a sum of Rs. 6. 00 lakhs had been paid to Diesels in pursuance of an agreement by Diesels to sell their land at village Ajronda to Motors. On further investigation they learnt that the land had been acquired and an award made. They also found from the records that two letters, dated 14th February 1969 and 8th July 1969, had been written by Motors to the Collector making a claim for compensation for the land. But, there was no trace of any notice or commu- nication from the Collector. . . . . . . . . In December 1972, Diesels filed an application (C. A. No. 50 of 1973) under section 446 of the Compa- nies Act against Gutti. They alleged that the purported agreement to sell dated llth November 1965, on the basis of which Gutti had obtained Rs. 84,000. 00 odd from the Collector, was a sham document prepared in collusion with an ex-Director, G. S. Anand, and was a fraud perpetrated on the company. They asserted that there was no resolution passed by the Board of Direc- tors authorising any such transaction. G. S. Anand, they said, owned only one share of Rs. 100. 84,000. 00 odd from the Collector, was a sham document prepared in collusion with an ex-Director, G. S. Anand, and was a fraud perpetrated on the company. They asserted that there was no resolution passed by the Board of Direc- tors authorising any such transaction. G. S. Anand, they said, owned only one share of Rs. 100. 00 issued by the company, and had ceased to be a Director much before the date of the agreement. He had since absconded and was reported to be living in America. Even the sum of Rs. 5000. 00, acknowledged in the agreement to have been received as earnest money, was not found entered in the books of Diesels. Diesels further contended, that a mere agreement to sell could not confer ownership on Gutti or give him any right to any portion of the compensation. They said that it was a pure and simple fraud , and prayed that Gutti be ordered to pay back to them a sum of Rs. 84,000. 00 odd with costs and further interest at the rate of 1% per mensem till realisation. Of course, Gutti denied all the allegations made by Diesels, except that he had received a sum of Rs. 84,000. 00 as compensation from the Land Acquisi- tion Collector on 5th July 1969 . He raised many legal pleas and maintained that he was entitled to receive the compensation. He contended that Diesels were bound by the statement made by G. S. Andnd on their behalf before the Collector. . Thus, issues were joined, and the matter pro- ceeded to trial. Over the next five years evidence was recorded. When it was nearly concluded, and Gutti was under examination in the witness-box, the matter was compromised. The compromise is recorded in an order dated llth May 1978 made by D. K. Kapur. J. By the terms of the compromise. Gutti agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000. 00 - to Diesels in satisfaction of their claim, and Rs. 1,250. 00 as costs. In addition, provision was made for payment of a further sum to Diesels, the amount of which would depend on the outcome of Gutti s pending reference under section 18 for enhancement of compensation. If the enhancement was up to Rs. 75,000. 00, nothing more was to be paid to Diesels. If it was between Rs. 75,000. 00 and Rs. 1. 00,000. 00. If the enhancement was up to Rs. 75,000. 00, nothing more was to be paid to Diesels. If it was between Rs. 75,000. 00 and Rs. 1. 00,000. 00. Diesels were to get the excess over Rs. 75,000. 00. If it was more than Rs. 1,00,000. 00, Diesels were to get excess over Rs. 25,000. 00 and no more, whatever be the amount of enhancement. This speculative part of the compromise seems to indicate that the Official Liquidator, who represented Diesels. was under the impression that the enhancement would not he more than Rs. 1,00. 000. 00. As 1 have mentioned already, it turned out to he Rs. 19,82,718. 16. In anticipation of the compromise. Gutti had handed over a cheque for Rs. 6,000. 00 to the Official Liquidator. This was now encashed. Soon afterwards, on 26th May 1978, D. K. Kapur J. made an order in Suit No. 149 of 1973 sending back to the District Judge, Gurgaon, the four cases previ- ously transferred to this court. Having regard to all the circumstances, and especially the fact that a compro- mise had been recorded in C. A. No. 50 of 1973. he thought it was best that these cases were tried by the District Judge. During the time that these cases were pending here, they do not appear to have made any substantial progress. However, on 8th November 1977 an order had been made on I. A. No. 592 of 1977 that the sum of Rs. 2,87,761. 50. deposited by the Collector with the District Judge in the reference under section 30. should be paid over to the Official Liquidator who would keep it intact in a separate account until final disposal of the apportionment proceedings. It was under this order that the money came into the hands of the Official Liquidator. The order was expressly continued in force by D. K. Kapur. J. when he directed, on 26th May 1978, that the four cases be returned to the District Judge. So, the action again shifted to the court of the District Judge at Gurgaon. There, thingsmoved with remarkable speed. Previously, all the four references were being tried together. On 29th July 1978, the District Judge made an order that the two references under Sec. 18 would he separated from the two refer- ences under Section 30. So, the action again shifted to the court of the District Judge at Gurgaon. There, thingsmoved with remarkable speed. Previously, all the four references were being tried together. On 29th July 1978, the District Judge made an order that the two references under Sec. 18 would he separated from the two refer- ences under Section 30. Thereafter, the two references under section 18 were consolidated, and evidence was agreed to be recorded only in one though to he read in both. These two references were decided by the District Judge on 26th September 1978, i. e. within four months of the order made by D. K. Kapur, J. returning the cases. But, the two references under section 30 are still pending and have not been decided up to date. In his judgment on the section 18 references, the District Judge made observations to the effect that since Gutti alone had applied for enhancement of the compensation he alone would be entitled to the enhanced amount. A copy of the order made by D. K. Kapur, J. on llth May 1978, recording the compromise in C. A. No. 50 of 1973 was exhibited in evidence in the proceedings before the District Judge. Referring to the terms of that order, the District Judge. enjoined that Gutti shall observe those conditions . He concluded his judgment as follows: i, therefore, am of the opinion that compensation at the rate of Rs. 450. 00 per marla should be allowed for the whole land under acquisition in these two references. None else except the petitioner (i. e. Gutti) is entitled to claim the enhanced amount except the Official Liquidatora who is entitled to the amounts as men- tioned in the judgment of the Hon ble High Court. No reference was got made by any other person interested including the permanent lessees or the persons who had entered into agreements with the Globe Diesels Aid. Their cases are separately pending. For claiming the sum of ,rs. 19,82,718. 16, being the additional amount of compensation payable in conse- quence of this judgment, Gutti relies greatly on these observations. The other parties contend that these observations are wholly without jurisdiction, and of no effect whatsoever, because no question of apportion- ment was raised in the references under section 18. For claiming the sum of ,rs. 19,82,718. 16, being the additional amount of compensation payable in conse- quence of this judgment, Gutti relies greatly on these observations. The other parties contend that these observations are wholly without jurisdiction, and of no effect whatsoever, because no question of apportion- ment was raised in the references under section 18. According to them, the only question which the District Judge was competent to decide, in these references under section 18, was the quantum of compensation. Not surprisingly, the enhanced compensation awarded by the District Judge gave rise to a spate of applications. The full details are not available on the record, but counsel have furnished me with some notes. Even these leave some obscurities, and I will try to piece together the rest of the story as best I can. It appears that on 18th October 1978, Gutti filed an application for executing the award made by the District Judge. The Collector deposited the sum of Rs. 19,82,718. 16 in the court of the District Judge on 23rd December 1978. Gutti then applied for payment of this amount to him. At or about this stage, the execution case pending before the District Judge was withdrawn by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and further proceedings took place there. Apparently, an application had been moved by Gutti or someone else under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. It appears that Diesels then filed an application for being impleaded as a party to the execution proceed- ings. They wished to raise the objection that as the compromise recorded in C. A. No. 50 of 1973 on llth May 1978, in pursuance of which Gutti was claiming the enhanced compensation, was itself under challenge in the Delhi High Court, therefore, Gutti was not entitled to execute the award. . . . . . " ( 9 ) WE have reproduced the paragraphs in our judgment of the order passed by the leaned Single Judge in the aforesaid Company Applications so as to highlight the nature, extent and complexities of the issues involved. Therefore, the dispute involved relates to Globe Motors, Globe Diesels, appellant and others and that is why the Company Court had framded 34 issues on 12th March 1982 in CA 403 of 1980. Therefore, the dispute involved relates to Globe Motors, Globe Diesels, appellant and others and that is why the Company Court had framded 34 issues on 12th March 1982 in CA 403 of 1980. It would be in the interest of justice that when so many conflicting questions relating to facts and execution of the agreement are involved on the basis of which appellant has claimed apportion- ment, the learned Single Judge directed by impugned order that the reference be tried before the Company Court. It would be relevant to point out some of the issues which were framed by the Company Court which have bearing on the subject matter of dispute. These are:- 1. Whether an agreement dated 29th June 1967, to sell the land subject matter of this proceedings, was executed by or on behalt of Globe Motors Limited? OPA 2. Whether Roshan Lal Bamha had authority to act on hehalf of and bind Globe Diesel Aid (P) Limited hy the said alleged agreement? OPA 3. Whether the said alleged agreement was collu- sive and fraudulent and brought into existence with the object of defeating the rights claimed by Mr. O. D. Gutti? OPR2 4. What amount, if any, was paid by Globe Motors Limited to Globe Diesel Aid (P) Ltd. pursuant to the said /alleged agreement? OPA 5. If issue Nos. 1,2 and 3 are found in favour of Globe Motors Limited, then what is the effect of the said alleged agreement on the rights claimed by Mr. O. D. Gutti? 6. Were notices under sections 9 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act served on the applicant and respon- dents Nos. 1,3 and 4? If not what is the effect? 7. Did the applicant company and respondent No. l file any claim with the Land Acquisition Collector, and, if not, what is the effect? 8. Whether an agreement dated llth November 1965 to sell the said land was signed by Mr. G. S. Anand in favour of Mr. O. D. Gutti? OPR2 9. Whether Mr. G. S. Anand purported to execute the said agreement on behalf of Globe Diesel Aid (P) Limited, and. if so, did he have authority to act on behalf of and bind the said company by the said agreement? OPR2. ( 10 ) WHETHER the said alleged agreement dated llth November 1965 purporting to he executed by Mr. Whether Mr. G. S. Anand purported to execute the said agreement on behalf of Globe Diesel Aid (P) Limited, and. if so, did he have authority to act on behalf of and bind the said company by the said agreement? OPR2. ( 10 ) WHETHER the said alleged agreement dated llth November 1965 purporting to he executed by Mr. G. S. Anand in favour of Mr. O. D. Gutti is fake and antedated? OPA ( 11 ) WHAT amount, if any, was paid by Mr. O. D. Gutti under the said alleged agreement to Globe Diesel Aid (P) Limited? OPR2. ( 12 ) WHETHER the Land Acquisition Collector was tricked by Mr. O. D. Gutti and Mr. G. S. Anand into pay- ing the sum of Rs. 84,114. 00 to Mr. O. D. Gutti on 5th July 1969, and. if so. what is the effect? OPA ( 13 ) DID Mr. O. D. Gutti give an undertaking to the Land-Acquisition Collector on 5th July 1969 that in the event of there being any dispute he would repay the sum of Rs. 84. 114. 00 paid over to him? If so, what is the effect? OPA". 10. Before we examine the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 446 of the Companies Act. we would deal with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the word court occurring under the Land Acquisition Act is a Court under the Land Acquisition Act exclusively and any other court cannot have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference. From the definition of the word court defined in Sec. 3 (d) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court means. principal civil court of original jurisdiction . Court has been defined in Sec. 2 (11) of the Companies Act. 1956 as under:- (a) with respect to any matter relating to a company (other than any offence against this Act), the Court having jurisdiction under this Act with respect to that matter relating to that company, as provided in section 10; (b) with respect to any offence against this Act, the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class or, as the case may be, a Presidency Magistrate, having jurisdiction to try such offence. 11. 11. The expression court as defined in the Land Acquisition Act is principal civil court of original jurisdiction and the Court under the Companies Act has also been defined as a court having jurisdic- tion under the Companies Act with respect to matters relating to that company. The harmonious construction would be that the courts are designated to deal with cases under the respective Acts for which they have jurisdiction to deal with matters arising out of said Acts. However, in a case like the present one where it would be in the interest of justice that the question of apportionment may not be decided by the court under the Land Acquisiton Act on account of winding up proceedings pending before the Company Court. The Company Court is not without jurisdiction to try the references under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act pending before the District Judge, Gurgaon in facts and circumstancces of this case. 12. Now let us examine the scope of sub-section. (3) of Section 446 of the Companies Act come to the conclusion as to the intention of legislature in such a situation as is confronted by us. 13. Sub-section (3) of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1946 reads as under:- (3) Any suit. or proceeding by or against the company which is pending in any Court other than that in which the winding up of the company is proceeding may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be transferred to and disposed of by that Court. " ( 14 ) FROM the plain language of the Section, it is clear that "any suit or proceedings by or against the company which is pending in any Court other than that in which the winding up of the company is pending may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force", makes it obligatory that proceedings pending before any other court may be transferred to the Court where winding up proceedings art pending. The, proceedings pending before the District Judge, Gurgaon under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act are proceedings pending before the District Judge, Gurgaon. Though technically State of Haryana may be the respon- dent but the main dispute is to the apportionment of amount of compensation between Globe Diesels, Globe Motors and the appel- lant. The, proceedings pending before the District Judge, Gurgaon under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act are proceedings pending before the District Judge, Gurgaon. Though technically State of Haryana may be the respon- dent but the main dispute is to the apportionment of amount of compensation between Globe Diesels, Globe Motors and the appel- lant. The proceedings for winding up in the matter of Globe Diesels, Globe Motors and pending before Company Court. Globe Motors and Globe Diesels have challenged the very basis of the execution of the agreement to sell in favour of the appellant and the request of the appellant to entitlement of compensation. That issue has to be decided. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice and expeditious trial and to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings that the reference under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act be transferred to Company Court. Proceedings pending before the District Judge, Gurgaon under -section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act are also proceedings which can be transferred under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 446 of the Companies Act. In the instant case when there is a serious challenge to the execution of the agreemeent between Globe Diesels, and appellant, the dispute is whether the person who executed the agreement had the authority to execute the said agreement or not, the extent of the interest of Globe Motors another sister concern of Globe Diesels and other ancillary issues which are pending adjudication before the Company Court, it will be in the interest of all parties that the proceedings pending before the District Judge. Gurgaon under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act be transferred and he decided by Company Court. ( 15 ) WE take note that more than 20 years have passed on account of one application or the other and the matter has been delayed for such a long time. For the reasons stated above, we dismiss the appeal. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.