proceedings”, the law-makers wanted to specifcally exclude from such ban such of those proceedings which are also likely to arise in a suit, but yet the imposition of ban of an unregistered frm need not be imposed. Keeping the said intent of the law-makers in mind, when we read clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3), it can be understood that even though such other proceedings may be for the enforcement of any right to sue but yet if it is for the dissolution of a frm or for accounts of a dissolved frm or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved frm, the same can be worked out by way of a suit in a court or by way of other proceedings in that suit and the same will not be afected by the ban imposed under sub-section (3). Similarly, any steps initiated at the instance of an ofcial assignee, a receiver or court under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) to realise the property of an insolvent partner in a pending suit of a court also stand excluded from the ban imposed under sub-section (3). The specifc exclusions contained in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3), therefore, makes the position clear to the efect that even though such proceedings may fall under the expression “other proceedings” and may be intrinsically connected with a suit in a court, yet the ban would not operate against such proceedings.
