Winding-up jurisdiction and provisional liquidation upheld where parallel proceedings did not bar protective relief on a prima facie showing.

A winding-up petition was treated as maintainable despite parallel proceedings in other fora, because the Tribunal viewed its Companies Act jurisdiction as distinct from the award-related disputes and not displaced by pending civil, High Court, or Supreme Court proceedings. On the materials showing alleged fraudulent conduct in incorporation and management, the Tribunal found a prima facie basis for admission and appointed a provisional liquidator to protect the company's affairs and assets pending final adjudication. Objections based on alleged lack of fuller prior opportunity and procedural filing defects were rejected as the parties had been heard and the defects were treated as curable, so interim relief was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the winding-up petition notwithstanding pending proceedings before other fora; (ii) whether a prima facie case was made out for admission of the petition and appointment of a provisional liquidator; and (iii) whether want of fuller prior opportunity or alleged procedural defects in filing barred interim relief.

Issue (i): whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the winding-up petition notwithstanding pending proceedings before other fora

Analysis: The petition was founded on the Tribunal's winding-up jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 2013. The pendency of connected disputes before civil courts, the High Court, or the Supreme Court related to the award and allied controversies, but did not oust the Tribunal's power over a winding-up petition. The Tribunal relied on the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction and treated the winding-up proceedings as distinct from the pending award-related matters.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Issue (ii): whether a prima facie case was made out for admission of the petition and appointment of a provisional liquidator

Analysis: On the material placed before it, including the alleged fraudulent conduct in the formation and management of the company, the short interval between incorporation and the contract, and the statutory authorities' findings, the Tribunal found a prima facie basis to proceed. It concluded that the company's continuation on the register required immediate protective action and that provisional liquidation was justified pending final adjudication of the winding-up petition.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that a prima facie case existed and appointed a provisional liquidator.

Issue (iii): whether want of fuller prior opportunity or alleged procedural defects in filing barred interim relief

Analysis: The Tribunal held that notice had been given and counsel had appeared and argued. It further treated the alleged misquotation of procedural rules as a curable defect and not fatal to the petition. On that basis, it rejected the objection that interim relief could not be granted at the admission stage.

Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the objections and allowed interim relief to proceed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was admitted, and the Official Liquidator was appointed as provisional liquidator with directions to take control of the company's affairs and preserve its assets, pending final hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A winding-up petition may be entertained by the Tribunal notwithstanding parallel proceedings elsewhere if it falls within the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction, and where a prima facie case of fraudulent conduct is shown, the Tribunal may grant protective interim relief including appointment of a provisional liquidator.

---