2026 (8) TMI 1531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....et aside the Order dated 3rd February, 2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in the Company Application filed by the Applicant seeking transfer of the captioned Company Petition to the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal under the provisions of Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013. By the impugned Order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the transfer of the captioned Company Petition to N.C.L.T. 2) Mr. Shinde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that, the Appellant intervened in the Application, objecting to the transfer of the Petition to N.C.L.T. mainly on the ground that the steps taken by the official liquidator in the company liquidation were irreversible. He contends that the learned Judge e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned single Judge also failed to undertake a fact-intensive enquiry mandated in A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt Ltd (supra), resulting in unsettlement of the concluded proceedings. 5) He further submits that the conduct of the Applicant was also overlooked. In particular, the Applicant had suppressed the ongoing and concluded D.R.T. proceedings, and material subsequent developments were not placed on record. The Applicant failed to disclose the sale of critical assets, which would have rendered the entire C.I.R.P. proceedings meaningless. He contends that impugned Order disregarded the statutory rights of the secured creditors. He reiterates that, with core assets having been sold, there remains no possibility of the company's revival or ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act must be exercised by examining whether winding up has reached an irreversible stage. Mere admission of a winding-up Petition and appointment of a provisional liquidator, or even the liquidator taking possession of the assets, does not by itself constitute an irreversible position. 10) In our view, the Appellant's case is not that no assets exists to enable company's revival. It is for the investors to decide whether revival would be beneficial to their interest. Consequently, if there exists a possibility to revive the company under the IBC framework, the sale of assets by the secured creditors standing outside the winding-up proceedings does not by itself constitute an irreversible step warranting r....