TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate, for Bank of India in Co. Application No.9 of 2016. Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklnai, Standing Counsel, for the Enforcement Directorate. Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for the applicant in Co. Application No.25 of 2016. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms. Godavari, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the Employees Provident Fund. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.8 in Co. Petition NO.13 of 2014. Mr. Rajesh Prakesh, Advocate, for Dhanlaxmi bank in Co. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f recovery certificate against respondent No.1 debtor to the tune of Rs.555,10,32,747/- issued by DRT-II, New Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. 4. Further, an averment has been made that the winding up order was passed by this Court on 21.09.2015. The official Liquidator, attached to this Court, was appointed as Liquidator for the purposes of management and disposal of assets and liabilities of respondent No.1-company, but till date the required results have not been achieved. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. This Court passed the winding up order on 21.09.2015 and the Liquidator was appointed. Since, nothing substantial could be achieved tow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one by the Transfer Rules, 2016 (supra) which came into force with effect from 15.12.2016. Rules 5 and 6 referred to three types of proceedings. Only those proceedings which are at the stage of preservice of notice of the winding up petition stand compulsorily transferred to the NCLT. (14.3) The result therefore was that post notice and pre admission of winding up petitions, parallel proceedings would continue under both statutes, leading to a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. This led to the introduction of the 5th proviso to section 434(1)(c) which, as has been correctly pointed out in Kaledonia (supra), is not restricted to any particular stage of a winding up proceeding. (14.4) Therefore, what follows as a matter o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ace, nothing irreversible is done which would warrant a Company Court staying its hands on a transfer application made to it by a creditor or any party to the proceedings. It is only where the winding up proceedings have reached a stage where it would be irreversible, making it impossible to set the clock back that the Company Court must proceed with the winding up, instead of transferring the proceedings to the NCLT to now be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Whether this stage is reached would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case." 9. Thus, this Court is having the jurisdiction to transfer Company Petition No.13 of 2014 to NCLT subject, however, to a condition that the winding up proceedings have no....