TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the registered office of the company is situated. This statutory provision provides the jurisdiction, and it cannot be changed under the guise of section 60(5) of the Code. While exercising the jurisdiction under section 60(5), the jurisdiction of other benches cannot be shifted to Mumbai Bench where the registered office of liquidating company lies. It is beyond the scope of this Bench to shift the jurisdiction of specified cases to Mumbai Bench under the guise of section 60(5) of the Code. Application dismissed. - MA NO. 1731 OF 2019 INCP (IB) 31 (MB) OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2019 - V.P. Singh Judicial Member And Ravikumar Duraisamy Technical Member For the Applicant : Abhay Manudhane, Liquidator, P.S. Thakre, (PCS) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumbersome to file cases before different Benches of Tribunal where the debtors of the Liquidating Company have registered offices considering the voluminous number of such debtors having offices at various locations falling under the jurisdiction of different NCLT Benches. 4. This application has been filed for seeking permission for filing of the cases against the Corporate Debtors of the Liquidating Company before Mumbai Bench of NCLT. 5. The applicant further contends that this Tribunal has passed an order for taking legal action against various parties as listed in Exhibit B to M.A. 212 of 2018 by its order dated 7-5-2018. In terms of the said order, this court granted liberty to the liquidator to proceed against the debtors of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btors are situated in different states and jurisdiction lies in different NCLT, Benches. 9. The applicant has emphasised on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sudershan Chit (India) Ltd. v. G. Sukumaran Pillai [1985] 58 Com. case 633, wherein it is held that: Before we advert to the question of construction of section 446 (2) (b), it would be advantageous to notice the historical evolution of the provision as well as its present setting. Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, the predecessor of section 446 (1) did not contain any provision similar or identical to that of section 446 (2). Section 171 only provided for a stay of suits and proceedings pending at the commencement of the winding-up pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h movable and immovable of the company and to realise the assets of the company, and this was to be done to distribute the assets of the company amongst the claimants. Now at a stage when a winding-up order is made, the company may as well have subsisting claims and to realise these claims, the Liquidator will have to file suits. To avoid this eventuality and to keep all incidental proceedings in winding up before the court which is winding up the company, its jurisdiction was enlarged to entertain petition amongst others for recovering the claims of the company. In the absence of a provision like section 446 (2) under the repealed Indian Companies Act, 1913, the official Liquidator in order to realise and recover the claims and subsisting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to be clarified that as per the statutory provision, case against the company can be filed where the registered office of the company is situated. This statutory provision provides the jurisdiction, and it cannot be changed under the guise of section 60(5) of the Code. While exercising the jurisdiction under section 60(5), the jurisdiction of other benches cannot be shifted to Mumbai Bench where the registered office of liquidating company lies. It is beyond the scope of this Bench to shift the jurisdiction of specified cases to Mumbai Bench under the guise of section 60(5) of the Code. 13. It is observed that the application is without any merit, and deserves to be rejected. 14. M.A.1731 of 2019 is accordingly rejected. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
