https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362340 Where winding up proceedings were already pending before the High Court, with notices served and the matter actively dealt with, the case was treated as outside the transfer categories under the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016. On that basis, a fresh insolvency application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held to be not maintainable because it would create parallel proceedings and defeat the transfer scheme. The NCLT's order appointing the interim resolution professional and declaring moratorium was also treated as without jurisdiction, as the High Court had already assumed seisin of the matter and the insolvency process could not displace the pending winding up proceedings. en-us Fri, 01 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:33:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362340 Where winding up proceedings were already pending before the High Court, with notices served and the matter actively dealt with, the case was treated as outside the transfer categories under the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016. On that basis, a fresh insolvency application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held to be not maintainable because it would create parallel proceedings and defeat the transfer scheme. The NCLT's order appointing the interim resolution professional and declaring moratorium was also treated as without jurisdiction, as the High Court had already assumed seisin of the matter and the insolvency process could not displace the pending winding up proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 01 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362340