https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284915 Transfer of a pending winding-up petition under the second proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 is discretionary and should not be ordered merely because a parallel insolvency application has been filed; the Court indicated that transfer is ordinarily appropriate only once insolvency proceedings are actually admitted, so refusal of transfer was upheld. The winding-up admission was also sustained because the creditor's claim for goods sold and delivered was met with no reply to the statutory demand, the company's earlier quality objections were treated as abandoned, and no bona fide defence or triable issue was shown to justify interference. en-us Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 May 2020 16:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284915 Transfer of a pending winding-up petition under the second proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 is discretionary and should not be ordered merely because a parallel insolvency application has been filed; the Court indicated that transfer is ordinarily appropriate only once insolvency proceedings are actually admitted, so refusal of transfer was upheld. The winding-up admission was also sustained because the creditor's claim for goods sold and delivered was met with no reply to the statutory demand, the company's earlier quality objections were treated as abandoned, and no bona fide defence or triable issue was shown to justify interference. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284915