Company court transfer jurisdiction supports winding up control when pending proceedings should be moved in the interest of justice.

Where a company has been wound up, the company court may transfer pending proceedings concerning it under section 446(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 if transfer is expedient in the interest of justice and enables effective control over the winding up. An application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act pending at a preliminary stage in another High Court was transferred because the objection based on inconvenience and possible witnesses was unsupported by material and was insufficient to resist transfer.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings pending before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court should be transferred to the company court under section 446(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

Analysis: The proceeding pending in the other High Court was only an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act and was still at a preliminary stage. The company had already been wound up, and the company court found it expedient in the interest of justice to have all matters concerning the wound-up company dealt with by the court having control over the winding up. The objection based on inconvenience and likely witnesses was found unsupported by material and insufficient to defeat transfer.

Conclusion: The proceedings were directed to be transferred to the company court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company has been ordered to be wound up, the company court may transfer pending proceedings concerning it if such transfer is expedient in the interest of justice and promotes effective control over the winding up.

---