TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Company petition files transferred to High Court in Jodhpur due to registered office location, emphasizing single jurisdiction</h1> <h3>Vimal Kumar Versus Bhilwara Wooltax Ltd.</h3> The court ruled in favor of transferring company petition files to the High Court in Jodhpur, emphasizing the jurisdiction based on the location of the ... Court – Jurisdiction of Issues:Jurisdiction of the court regarding transfer of company petition files and liquidation proceedings, interpretation of section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, appointment of company judges, jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the registered office of the company, proceedings for liquidation at two different places, petition for grant of leave to carry out proceedings against the company in liquidation, jurisdiction of the company judge in Jaipur and Jodhpur, cause of action arising at different places, and transfer of company application to Jodhpur.Analysis:The judgment dealt with a miscellaneous application filed by the official liquidator seeking the transfer of company petition files to a different High Court and permission to link related petitions. The court analyzed section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, which specifies the jurisdiction based on the location of the company's registered office. The court emphasized that the High Court with jurisdiction over the registered office of the company has the authority. In this case, the registered office being in Bhilwara, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur had the jurisdiction as per a notification dated December 23, 1976, assigning specific districts to different benches for disposal of cases.The judgment highlighted the appointment of company judges for specific areas and clarified that their jurisdiction does not overlap. It emphasized that the proceedings for liquidation cannot be conducted at two different places simultaneously. The court emphasized that the registered office of a company cannot be at two places at the same time and that the notification specified the place for jurisdiction. It was noted that the expression 'registered office' refers to the place that has been the registered office for the longest period preceding the winding-up petition.Regarding a petition by a bank for leave to carry out proceedings against the company in liquidation, the court ruled that since the company petition had already been admitted at Jodhpur, the company judge there had the proper jurisdiction to decide on the bank's petition. The judgment rejected the argument that part of the cause of action arose at Jaipur, emphasizing that proceedings for liquidation should be conducted at one place to avoid complications. Consequently, the court directed the transfer of the relevant company application to Jodhpur for proper adjudication and ordered the listing of connected files for further action.In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of maintaining a single jurisdiction for liquidation proceedings, upheld the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur for the case at hand, and directed the transfer of the necessary files to ensure proper adjudication and avoid procedural complexities arising from dual proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
