GEORGE, Bankruptcy Judge
Pursuant to the exceptions in Section 23(b) of the Bankruptcy Act, a proper forum for an amended complaint for injunctive relief and turnover order brought under Sections 67 and 70 is in a "court of bankruptcy", but because such jurisdiction is plenary in nature, it must vest in the appropriate United States District Court acting as a court of bankruptcy and not with the bankruptcy referee.
Under Section 23(b), "[s]uits by the receiver and the trustee shall be brought or prosecuted only in the courts where the bankrupt might have brought or prosecuted them if proceedings under this Act had not been instituted, unless by consent of the defendant, except as provided in sections 60, 67, and 70 of this Act." Section 67(e) of the Act further states that "[f]or the purpose of any recovery or avoidance under this Section, where plenary proceedings are necessary, any State court which would have had jurisdiction if bankruptcy had not intervened and any court of bankruptcy shall have concurrent jurisdiction." Section 70e(3) has a similar jurisdictional mandate. The present case may therefore be brought in a "court of bankruptcy." However, although Section 60b, 67c and 70e(3) specifically grant concurrent jurisdiction to any "bankruptcy court", "the referee does not, without the parties' consent, have jurisdiction over a plenary suit instituted under these sections, even though the district court has such jurisdiction." Therefore, reference of this case to the present court was improper.
However, because of the inadvertent nature of the misfiling of the present complaint in the bankruptcy court, along with the apparent lack of injury to the defendants caused by such misfiling, the court, udner Bankruptcy Rule 915(b) transferred the proceeding to the docket of the United States District Court, rather than dismissing the action. See Sec. 23(b) at ¶ 2228, Sec. 67(e) at ¶ 2665, Sec. 70e(3) at ¶ 2701 and Sec. 544b at ¶ 9523, and Rule 915(b) at ¶ 20,345.