https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103578 Territorial jurisdiction in a winding-up matter remains fixed by the statutory rule that the petition must lie before the High Court where the company's registered office is situated. Amalgamation and substitution of the original respondent-company did not enlarge that forum, because the transferor-company had ceased to exist and its liabilities vested in the transferee-company, while pending proceedings could continue only against the transferee-company. Consent, substitution, or acquiescence could not override the Companies Act jurisdictional mandate. As the substituted company's registered office was in Mumbai, the Punjab and Haryana High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and the winding-up petition was not maintainable before it. en-us Wed, 21 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:54:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103578 Territorial jurisdiction in a winding-up matter remains fixed by the statutory rule that the petition must lie before the High Court where the company's registered office is situated. Amalgamation and substitution of the original respondent-company did not enlarge that forum, because the transferor-company had ceased to exist and its liabilities vested in the transferee-company, while pending proceedings could continue only against the transferee-company. Consent, substitution, or acquiescence could not override the Companies Act jurisdictional mandate. As the substituted company's registered office was in Mumbai, the Punjab and Haryana High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and the winding-up petition was not maintainable before it. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 21 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103578