Company Court's Discretion in Transferring Winding Up Proceedings Post-Admission: Legal Analysis

The Court held that the company court retains discretion to transfer winding up proceedings to NCLT post-admission, based on irreversible situations. Pre-service of notice petitions are compulsorily transferable, while post-admission petitions are subject to the Company Court's discretion. In cases where irreversible corporate death is inevitable, the winding up should be completed by the Company Court. Secured creditors' actions under IBC and their consent to transfer proceedings are factors considered. The Court directed winding up to proceed in some cases and upheld transfers to NCLT in others.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the company court can Suo Motu transfer a proceeding relating to winding up to NCLT or can such transfer only be made pursuant to an application by one of the partiesRs.

Summary:

The principal issue raised in this appeal by the appellants is whether the company court can Suo Motu transfer a proceeding relating to winding up to NCLT or can such transfer only be made pursuant to an application by one of the parties. The appellants argued that according to Section 434(1)(c) last proviso of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rules 5 and 6 of Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016, the direction to transfer the company petition to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata is without jurisdiction. They contended that Section 434 does not contemplate automatic transfer of all winding up petitions and that the company court retains jurisdiction unless an application for transfer is made by a party.

Mr. Moloy Kumar Sil, representing UCO Bank, argued that the Company Court retains discretion in post-admission winding up matters to transfer proceedings to NCLT, depending on whether an irreversible situation has arisen. The clear legislative intent is to oust the jurisdiction of the Court and transfer proceedings to the Tribunal to resuscitate corporate debtors and prevent parallel proceedings.

The Court referred to the substituted Section 434(1)(c) and the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016, noting that only pre-service of notice winding up petitions are compulsorily transferable to NCLT. The discretion to transfer post-admission petitions lies with the Company Court, which should consider whether any irreversible steps have been taken in the winding up process.

In Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd., the Supreme Court observed that the primary focus of the legislation is to ensure revival and continuation of the corporate debtor. The Court must consider whether any irreversible situation has arisen before deciding to transfer the proceeding to NCLT.

Applying these principles, the Court found that in the case of M/s. Total Plastic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation), the corporate death of the company is inevitable, and thus, the winding up of the company should be completed by the Company Court. The order to transfer the proceeding to NCLT was set aside.

In the case of M/s. Abhijeet Projects Limited (In Liquidation), the Court found that the secured creditors did not file any application under Section 7 and 8 of IBC and one of the secured creditors, IDBI, opposed the transfer. Therefore, the discretion to transfer the proceeding to NCLT could not have been exercised, and the Company Court shall proceed with the winding up.

For M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited (In Liquidation), the Court noted that five financial institutions consented to the transfer of proceedings to NCLT. Given the views of the secured creditors and the lack of substantial progress in the liquidation proceeding, the order to transfer the proceeding to NCLT was upheld.

The appeals were decided accordingly, with directions for the Company Court to proceed with the winding up in some cases and to transfer the records to NCLT in others.

---