Appeal denied due to lack of notice in Company Petition transfer case.

The appeal against transferring the Company Petition to NCLT due to lack of notice served on the Respondent was dismissed by the Court. The judgment emphasized adherence to procedural requirements, specifically the mandatory issuance of a formal notice to the Respondent as per the Rules. The Court highlighted the significance of following the prescribed process before retaining a winding-up petition in the Company Court. The decision underscored the importance of proper notice service and upheld the Single Judge's ruling, ultimately dismissing the appeal and disposing of related applications accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Transfer of Company Petition to NCLT based on lack of notice served on Respondent in winding up petition.

Analysis:
The appeal was against transferring the Company Petition to NCLT due to the absence of a notice served on the Respondent. The Appellant had booked a residential plot and paid a significant amount, later seeking a refund due to reduction in plot size. The Respondent assured repayment, but legal action was initiated under Companies Act, 1956. The Respondent agreed to abide by the agreement terms, leading to a delay in issuing a winding-up notice. The Single Judge noted the absence of a notice to show cause for winding up due to the peculiar circumstances. The Respondent later argued that the Company Court lacked jurisdiction due to a notification by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, leading to a series of hearings and arguments.

The judgment relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Rules 26 and 27, emphasizing the pre-admission scenario for notice issuance. The Appellant cited judgments from the Bombay High Court to support retention of the petition in the High Court. However, the Court analyzed the amended Companies Act, 2013, and the subsequent Rules, emphasizing the need for proper notice service as per Rule 26. The Court referred to previous judgments and the specific language of the Rules to clarify the mandatory nature of notice issuance before retaining a winding-up petition in the Company Court.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the Single Judge's decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of following procedural requirements, specifically the issuance of a formal notice to the Respondent as mandated by the Rules. The appeal was dismissed, and related applications were disposed of accordingly.

---