https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278730 The case centered on the interpretation of Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016, specifically Rule 5, and the conflicting interpretations of Rules 26 and 27 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, regarding service of petitions in winding-up matters. The Bombay High Court emphasized service under Rule 26 irrespective of admission, while the Madras High Court required post-admission notice for Rule 26 to apply. Ultimately, the court had to reconcile these differing views to determine the appropriate application of the rules in transferring pending proceedings. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:25:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278730 The case centered on the interpretation of Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016, specifically Rule 5, and the conflicting interpretations of Rules 26 and 27 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, regarding service of petitions in winding-up matters. The Bombay High Court emphasized service under Rule 26 irrespective of admission, while the Madras High Court required post-admission notice for Rule 26 to apply. Ultimately, the court had to reconcile these differing views to determine the appropriate application of the rules in transferring pending proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278730