Even post admission of a winding up petition, and after the appointment of a Company Liquidator to take over the assets of a company sought to be wound up, discretion is vested in the Company Court to transfer such petition to the NCLT – Action Ispat And Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Metalics And Energy Ltd. – Supreme Court

What becomes clear upon a reading of the Jaipur Metals, Forech India and Kaledonia Jute judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the following: (i) So far as transfer of winding up proceedings is concerned, the Code began tentatively by leaving proceedings relating to winding up of companies to be transferred to NCLT at a stage as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (ii) This was done by the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 which came into force with effect from 15.12.2016. Rules 5 and 6 referred to three types of proceedings. Only those proceedings which are at the stage of pre-service of notice of the winding up petition stand compulsorily transferred to the NCLT. (iii) The result therefore was that post notice and pre admission of winding up petitions, parallel proceedings would continue under both statutes, leading to a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. This led to the introduction of the 5th proviso to section 434(1)(c) which, as has been correctly pointed out in Kaledonia (supra), is not restricted to any particular stage of a winding up proceeding. (iv) Therefore, what follows as a matter of law is that even post admission of a winding up petition, and after the appointment of a Company Liquidator to take over the assets of a company sought to be wound up, discretion is vested in the Company Court to transfer such petition to the NCLT. The question that arises before us in this case is how is such discretion to be exercised?

Related Posts

Guarantor cannot but be stated to be a strict liability & even if the principal debtor is discharged from his liability unless such discharge is through the act of the creditor without consent of the surety/guarantor, the creditor’s right of action against the surety is preserved-Industrial Finance Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Thletdc.An&Naonrosr.E Spinning & Weaving Mills -Supreme Court

Case Laws-SARFAESI-Supreme Court, IBC-Case Laws-Supreme Court, Indian Contract Act-Case Laws

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…

Read Post »

Scroll to Top