Involuntary transfer in liquidation attracts standard transfer charges, not differential premium, under MIDC transfer guidelines.

The Bombay HC held that the Company Court's winding-up jurisdiction is wide enough to entertain the Official Liquidator's report and any question of law or fact arising in liquidation, so the MIDC claim could be examined on that basis. It further held that a sale by the Official Liquidator in compulsory winding up is an involuntary transfer, because it is a court-supervised liquidation rather than a voluntary business decision. Accordingly, the applicable levy was standard transfer charges, not differential premium. The issue of extension charges was left to be considered if and when raised at the appropriate stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Company Court had jurisdiction under the winding-up provisions to entertain the Official Liquidator's report, and whether transfer of leasehold rights in liquidation of the company's assets amounted to an involuntary transfer attracting standard transfer charges rather than differential premium.

Analysis: The jurisdiction conferred by the winding-up provisions is wide and extends to any question of law or fact arising in the course of winding up, so the Official Liquidator's request for directions on the MIDC claim was maintainable before the Company Court. On the merits, the MIDC transfer guidelines drew a distinction between voluntary and involuntary transfers. A sale by the Official Liquidator during compulsory winding up is not a transfer in the ordinary course of business or a business strategy choice. It is a forced liquidation process undertaken under the supervision of the Company Court for the benefit of creditors and workmen. That places the transaction within the category of involuntary transfer, for which the applicable charge is standard transfer charges and not differential premium. The Court also treated the liquidation situation as comparable to other compelled statutory transfer situations dealt with under the MIDC guidelines.

Conclusion: The Company Court was competent to decide the report, and the transfer of the subject plots in liquidation was held to be an involuntary transfer not liable to differential premium. The demand for standard transfer charges was upheld, while the question of extension charges was left to be dealt with at the appropriate stage when claimed.

---