Winding up jurisdiction follows the registered office and territorial notification; parallel liquidation proceedings before two forums are impermissible.

In winding up matters, jurisdiction is governed by the company's registered office and the notified territorial allocation under section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956. Where the registered office was at Bhilwara and the applicable notification placed that district within the Jodhpur seat, jurisdiction lay with the company judge at Jodhpur rather than Jaipur. The same liquidation proceedings could not proceed simultaneously before two forums, because that would create conflicting control and procedural duplication. The connected company petition and liquidation file were therefore required to be consolidated and transferred to Jodhpur, with liberty to seek ratification or regularisation of earlier orders in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the company petition and connected liquidation proceedings were required to be dealt with by the company judge having jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the company was situated. (ii) Whether the liquidation proceedings could continue simultaneously at two places and whether the pending file was liable to be transferred to Jodhpur.

Issue (i): Whether the company petition and connected liquidation proceedings were required to be dealt with by the company judge having jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the company was situated.

Analysis: Jurisdiction in winding up matters under section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, depends upon the place where the registered office of the company is situated. The registered office of the company was at Bhilwara, and the applicable High Court notification allocated cases from that district to the Jodhpur seat. The existence of company judges at different seats did not create concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction, because the notified territorial allocation controlled the exercise of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Jurisdiction lay with the company judge at Jodhpur, not Jaipur, for the winding up proceedings relating to the company.

Issue (ii): Whether the liquidation proceedings could continue simultaneously at two places and whether the pending file was liable to be transferred to Jodhpur.

Analysis: The Court held that liquidation proceedings cannot be permitted to proceed at two places simultaneously, as that would create conflicting control over the same company, including duplication of liquidators and procedural complications. Since the winding up matter had already been entertained at Jodhpur and the relevant territorial jurisdiction vested there, the connected proceedings and file were required to be consolidated before that forum.

Conclusion: The proceedings were directed to be transferred to Jodhpur and could not continue at both places.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, and the company matter was ordered to proceed before the Jodhpur forum with liberty to seek ratification or regularisation of earlier orders in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In winding up matters, jurisdiction follows the place of the company's registered office and the notified territorial allocation, and the same liquidation proceedings cannot be simultaneously conducted before more than one forum.

---