TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court of Karnataka vide proceedings dated 18.11.2019. Accordingly, the case was scrutinized by the Registry of this Tribunal and found that only one set of paper was available, and thus another set was s required to be filed on the record, and the Petitioner has to compliance provisions as contemplated in the case. However the Petitioner failed to comply and was not present when the case was listed for admission on 27.12.2019. However, the Petitioner has not taken any steps to comply office objections raised by the Registry and also not served the copy of the Petition on other side. The Petitioner failed to submit the required information as required under Section 9 of the Code till date. Therefore, the instant Company Petition abates and thus it is liable to be rejected, by reserving liberty to the Petition to file appropriate Application/Petition in accordance with the provisions of the IBC 2016, and rules made there under. Petition is disposed of as abated by reserving liberty to the Petitioner to file appropriate Application/Petition in accordance with the extant provisions of the IBC 2016, and rules made there under. - C.P. No. 294/2015 and T.P. No. 3/2019 - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16/08/2014 1,24,200.00 8994319510 RV 16/08/2014 1,51,800.00 8994319509 RV 16/08/2014 1,20,750.00 8994319689 RV 16/08/2014 1,24,200.00 8994319522 RV 16/08/2014 1,24,200.00 8994319691 RV 16/08/2014 1,24,200.00 8994321876 RV 28/08/2014 1,51,800.00 8994321874 RV 28/08/2014 1,51,800.00 8994321873 RV 28/08/2014 1,51,800.00 8994321834 RV 28/08/2014 1,24,200.00 8994321842 RV 28/08/2014 1,20,750.00 8994322471 RV 31/08/2014 1,51,800.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars of which are as follows: Sl. No Cheque No. Dated Drawn On Amount (Rs) 1 069120 04.12.2014 Corporation Bank 25,00,000.00 2 288815 31.03.2015 Vijaya Bank 25,00,000.00 3 288816 31.03.2015 Vijaya Bank 25,00,000.00 4 349130 20.06.2015 SBI Bank 5,00,000.00 5 349131 26.06.2015 SBI Bank 5,00,000.00 6 087709 15.09.2015 Corporation Bank 5,00,000.00 7 087710 22.09.2015 Corporation Bank 5,00,000.00 8 087711 29.09.2015 Corporation Bank 5,00,000.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16.08.2014 124,200.00 24,010.00 8994321876 28.08.2014 151,800.00 28,447.00 8994321874 28.08.2014 151,800.00 28,447.00 8994321873 28.08.2014 151,800.00 28,477.00 8994321834 28.08.2014 124,200.00 23,275.00 8994321842 28.08.2014 120,750.00 22,628.00 8994322471 31.08.2014 151,800.00 28,222.00 8994322470 31.08.2014 151,800.00 28,222.00 8994322525 31.08.2014 120,750.00 22,450.00 8994322486 31.08.2014 124,200.00 23,091.00 8994324776 15.09.2014 136,400.00 24,350.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice dated 13.10.2015, the Respondent has sent a reply dated 26.10.2015 expressing their financial difficulties and has requested the Petitioner for one week time to clear the outstanding due. As requested by the Respondent, the Petitioner has waited for more than one month and has given sufficient time than what was requested by the Respondent in their reply letter dated 26.10.2015. (7) It is stated that the Respondent is legally indebted for a sum of ₹ 47,06,719/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Nineteen Only) and liable to reimburse the outstanding amount which the Petitioner is legitimately entitled from the Respondent. The Respondent was served with a statutory notice under Section 433 (e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. Since the Respondent has failed to refund the outstanding amount after the service of the statutory notice under Section 433(e) and 434, it should be deemed that the Respondent is unable to pay its debt and in such an event it would be just and equitable that the Respondent be wound up by an order of this Hon'ble Court under the provisions of the Companies Act. (8) It is stated that the Respondent was served with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner, and Mr. G. Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the Respondent. We have carefully perused the pleadings of both the Parties and extant provisions of Companies Act, 1956/2013 and the law on the issue. 6. Mr. Vivek B.N., learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has once again asked adjournment to take necessary steps to comply with provisions of Code. 7. The Respondent has filed a Memo of submissions dated 27.02.2020 by inter alia contending as follows: a. The present Company Petition already stands abated in terms of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016, Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short, the '2013 Act) was notified and came into force with effect from 15.12.2016. On and from that date, all proceedings relating to winding up, among other proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the '1956 Act'), pending immediately before such date before. High court shall stand transferred to the Tribunal. b. The first proviso states that only such proceedings relating to winding up of Companies shall be transferred to the Tribunal that are at a stage as may be prescribed by the Central Government. In pursuance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d proviso to section 434910(c) of the 2013 Act does allow the parties to any proceedings to make an Application for transfer of such proceedings to the Tribunal. The court may by an order transfer such proceedings to the tribunal and the proceedings so transferred shall be dealt with by the Tribunal as an application under the Code. It is submitted that in case of transfer under second proviso to section 434(1)(c), there would be no application of the provisions of TPP Rules, 2016 and not necessity for furnishing the information as required under section 7, 8, or 9 of the Code. However, these would be applicable only in respect of the pending matters immediately before commencement of IBC (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 (i.e. 06.06.018). Since the present Company Petition was no longer pending before the High Court on that date by virtue of it being transferred on 15.12.2016 by automatic operation of law, the second proviso can have no application. It also does not appear that the transfer of the petition by the High Court was on an a\Application made by the Petitioner. h. It is further pointed out that the Hon'ble High Court, by an order dated 14.09.2017 made an observation tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
