9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Forech India Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. The Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the subsequent amendment in the Companies Act in the case of Forech India Ltd (Supra) has held that:- "16. We are of the view that Rules 26 and 27 clearly refer to a pre-admission scenario as is clear from a plain reading of Rules 26 and 27, which make it clear that the notice contained in Form No. 6 has to be served in not less than 14 days before the date of hearing. Hence, the expression "was admitted" in Form No. 6 only means that notice has been issued in the winding up petition which is then "fixed for hearing before the Company Judge" on a certain day. Thus, the Madras High Court view is plainly incorrect where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme, as aforesaid, this Court held: "17. However, this does not end the matter. It is clear that Respondent No. 3 has filed a Section 7 application under the Code on 11.01.2018, on which an order has been passed admitting such application by the NCLT on 13.04.2018. This proceeding is an independent proceeding which has nothing to do with the transfer of pending winding up proceedings before the High Court. It was open for Respondent No. 3 at any time before a winding up order is passed to apply under Section 7 of the Code. This is clear from a reading of Section 7 together with Section 238 of the Code which reads as follows: "238. Provisions of this Code to override other laws.-The provisions of this Code shall have effect, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also to be disposed of in light of the fact that proceedings under the Code must run their entire course. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment." 19. Mr. Sen also referred us to a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay reported, in (2018) 2 AIR Bom R 350 in PSL Limited vs. Jotun India Private Limited. The Learned Single Judge, after referring to the self-same provisions of the Code and subordinate legislation made thereunder, held as follows:- "93. The fact that post notice winding up petitions continue to be governed by the Companies Act, 1956, only means - that to those proceedings it will be the Companies Act, 1956 which will apply. It does not, however, mean that if, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
