Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2019 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1049 - HC - Companies LawNCLT territorial jurisdiction over the Winding up petition - No formal notice issued on the respondent that petition has to be transferred to NCLT - HELD THAT:- As per the orders of this court no formal notice was issued on the respondent to show cause as the respondent entered appearance on the first date itself and submitted that it was ready and willing to abide by all the terms of the agreement. In fact, on the first date when the matter was taken up for hearing, namely, 15.07.2015 this court after noting the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent noted as follows:- “It is made clear that in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, no notice to show cause as to why the respondent-company be not wound up is issued to the respondent at this stage.” None of the subsequent orders have issued notice to the respondent. The respondent has also not been asked to file counter affidavit to the main petition to oppose its admission. Hence, no notice under Rule 26 of the Companies(Court) Rules, 1959 was served on the respondent. The Supreme Court in Forech India Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co.Ltd. (2019 (1) TMI 1442 - SUPREME COURT) has held that where no notice under Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules is issued the petition has to be transferred to NCLT. This court would have no jurisdiction to retain the present matter in view section 434 read with Rule 5 of the Companies(Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016. It is directed accordingly. The Registry may transfer the present petition to NCLT.
|