Skip to main content

Winding Up Proceedings Under SICA Are To Continue In HC And Not In NCLT

In JAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION vs JAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS LTD., appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the refusal of the Rajasthan High Court to transfer winding up proceedings pending before it to the National Company Law Tribunal and set aside the NCLT order declaring a moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code and appointing an interim resolution professional.

The Supreme Court has held that winding up proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 will continue in the High Court and not the National Company Law Tribunal, until an application for transfer to NCLT is filed by a party under Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act 2013. Therefore the Supreme Court decided that the High Court judgment, therefore, though incorrect in applying Rule 6 of the 2016 Transfer Rules, can still be supported on this aspect with a reference to Rule 5(2) of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules 2016, read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013, as amended, with effect from 17.08.2018.

Further, the order passed by the NCLT on 13.04.2018 admitting an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency Code is perfectly valid as this  proceeding is an independent proceeding which has nothing to do with the transfer of pending winding up proceedings before the High Court. It is open for a financial creditor at any time before a winding up order is passed to apply under Section 7 of the Code.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more