Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Madhya Pradesh High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the BIFR reference for winding up, and whether the reference ought to have been sent to the High Court having jurisdiction where the company's registered office was situated.
Analysis: Jurisdiction under the winding up framework was held to depend upon the place where the company's registered office is situated. Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was read with section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, under which the High Court having jurisdiction is the High Court in relation to the place of the registered office. Since the registered office was at Calcutta, the reference had to be made to the Calcutta High Court as the proper and concerned High Court.
Conclusion: The Madhya Pradesh High Court was not the concerned High Court within the meaning of section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 read with section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, and had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the reference.
Final Conclusion: The reference was returned for transmission to the Calcutta High Court, and the territorial jurisdiction objection was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: For a winding up reference under SICA, the concerned High Court is determined by the location of the company's registered office under the Companies Act.