In Company Petition No. 119 of 2014, the court referred to the Supreme Court in Action Ispat regarding the applicability of the Companies Code on pending winding-up petitions under the 1956 Act and ordered the transfer of the petition to the NCLT.
Company petition transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore Bench.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:40657 COP No. 119 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
COMPANY PETITION NO. 119 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
NC: 2023:KHC:40657 COP No. 119 of 2014
THIS COMPANY PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(1)(B) R/W SECTION 433 (E) & (F) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, PRAYING THAT THE NILGIRIS DAIRY FARM PRIVATE LIMITED BE WOUND UP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANY'S ACT,1956, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Ispat Pvt. Ltd., v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd.,1 has
held as under:
“25. Given the aforesaid scheme of winding up under Chapter XX of the Companies Act, 2013, it is clear that several stages are contemplated, with the Tribunal retaining the power to control the proceedings in a winding-up petition even after it is admitted. Thus, in a winding-up proceeding where the petition has not been served in terms of Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 at a pre-admission stage, given the beneficial result of the application of the Code, such winding-up proceeding is compulsorily transferable to NCLT to be resolved under the Code. Even post issue of notice and pre-admission, the same result would ensue. However, post admission of a winding-up petition and after the assets of the company sought to be wound up become in custodia legis and are taken over by the Company Liquidator, Section 290 of the Companies Act, 2013 would indicate that the Company Liquidator may carry on the business of the company, so far as may be necessary, for the beneficial winding up of the company, and may even sell the company as a going concern. So long as no actual
1 2021(2) SCC 641
sales of the immovable or movable properties have taken place, nothing irreversible is done which would warrant a Company Court staying its hands on a transfer application made to it by a creditor or any party to the proceedings. It is only where the winding-up proceedings have reached a stage where it would be irreversible, making it impossible to set the clock back that the Company Court must proceed with the winding up, instead of transferring the proceedings to NCLT to now be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Whether this stage is reached would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”
(emphasis supplied)
Hon'ble Supreme Court, as noticed above, the present company petition shall stand transferred to the National Company Law
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench.
Sd/JUDGE
nd
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a company petition filed for winding up under the 1956 Act should be transferred to the NCLT under the Code.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Action Ispat Pvt. Ltd, v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd,Referred¶23
Action Ispat Pvt. Ltd., v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd., 2021(2) SCC 641 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S MINT PROPERTIES
M/S THE NILGIRI DAIRY FARM PVT LTD
C.M. POONACHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
