https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376865 The note explains that a judgment binds only on the issues it actually decides, so the ruling in India Steam Laundry could not be extended beyond oppression and mismanagement proceedings under the 1956 Act. It further states that the transfer regime in Section 434(1)(c), read with the 7 December 2016 notification and later amendment, applies only to pending proceedings within its expressed scope. An appeal from a winding-up order already passed by the High Court was not shown to be a transferred proceeding under that scheme, so the jurisdictional objection failed and the appeal remained maintainable before the High Court. en-us Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Mar 2019 08:50:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376865 The note explains that a judgment binds only on the issues it actually decides, so the ruling in India Steam Laundry could not be extended beyond oppression and mismanagement proceedings under the 1956 Act. It further states that the transfer regime in Section 434(1)(c), read with the 7 December 2016 notification and later amendment, applies only to pending proceedings within its expressed scope. An appeal from a winding-up order already passed by the High Court was not shown to be a transferred proceeding under that scheme, so the jurisdictional objection failed and the appeal remained maintainable before the High Court. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376865