TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 985
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. for dismissal of this recall application, which has been registered as CA 187 of 2016. This matter was scheduled for hearing on 11th January, 2017. On that date Mr. Kar, learned senior counsel appearing for Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. brought to my notice a notification bearing No. G.S.R.1119(E) dated 7th December, 2016 and a Statutory Order being SO3676(E) dated 7th December, 2016. The term "G.S.R." stands for General Statutory Rule and the aforesaid notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under sub-sections (1) and (2) to Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Statutory Order was passed in exercise of power under Section 470(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating to winding up on the date of coming into force of these rules shall stand transferred to the Benches of the Tribunal exercising respective territorial jurisdiction: Provided that all those proceedings which are reserved for orders for allowing or otherwise of such proceedings shall not be transferred. 4. Pending proceeding relating to Voluntary Winding up: All applications and petitions relating to voluntary winding up of compromises pending before a High Court on the date of commencement of this rule, shall continue with and dealt with by the High Court in accordance with provisions of the Act. 5. Transfer of pending proceedings of Winding up on the ground of inability to pay debts.- (1) All petitions relating to winding up ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itions under clauses (a) and (f) of section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 pending before a High Court and where the petition has not been served on the respondent as required under rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 shall be transferred to the Bench of the Tribunal exercising territorial jurisdiction and such petitions shall be treated as petitions under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013). ..................... ......................... ........................... .................. ..................... ......... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... .... .................. ..................... ......................... ........ transferred by the respective High Courts to the National Company Law Tribunal Bench....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings under the 1956 Act with High Courts on all cases other than winding-up as on 15th December, 2016 shall stand transferred to the Benches of the Tribunals exercising respective territorial jurisdiction and (ii) all cases of winding up under the 1956 Act which are pending before the High Courts as on 15th December, 2016 and wherein petitions have not been served to the respondents as per rule 26 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 shall be transferred to Tribunal, and all remaining cases of winding up pending on that date would continue with the respective High Courts; And, whereas, difficulties have arisen regarding continuation of provisions of the 1956 Act for (i) those proceedings relating to cases other than winding-up that are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other than the cases relating to winding up of companies that are reserved for orders for allowing or otherwise such proceedings; or (ii) the proceedings relating to winding up of companies which have not been transferred from the High Courts; shall be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959." Based on these two statutory instruments, Mr. Kar submitted that these proceedings ought to be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as an application for recalling a consent order passed in a winding up petition ought to be treated as continuance of the winding up petition itself. Mr. Kar specifically drew my attention to clause 5 of the GSR 1119(E) dated 7th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not employ words in statute as surplusage. In my opinion, proper construction of this provision would be this. In the first part of clause 5, there is general description of the petition which is pending before the High Court, and in the second part after the punctuation comma - there is the qualifier - which petition has not been served on the respondent. Only those petitions are required to be transferred. In the event the contrary interpretation, as advanced by Mr. Kar, is accepted, then the second part of the first sentence of that provision shall be rendered otiose. In such a case, the petitions, which have been filed but not served, would also come within the ambit of the all encompassing expression used in the first two words of the....