TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re parting with this matter, it would be suffice to state that the three decisions [ WEST HILLS REALTY PRIVATE LTD. RAVI GHAI AND ANOTHER VERSUS NEELKAMAL REALTORS TOWER PVT. LTD. [ 2016 (12) TMI 1253 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8, MUMBAI VERSUS REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, MUMBAI, MR. KESAVAN VARADARAJAN DIRECTOR, MOTECH SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., MR KAUSHIK VRAJDAS VED [ 2017 (5) TMI 315 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , THE JAYABHARAT CREDIT LIMITED VERSUS JALGAON RE-ROLLING INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 1996 (10) TMI 527 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] ] have no bearing on the matters in issue in view of categorical directions of the Supreme Court in the above noted case of Action Ispat and Power Limited. The instant petitions are transferred to the NCLT. Parties to appear before the NCLT on 01.04.2024. The interim orders passed by this Court in these petitions, if any, shall continue till the said date. Petition disposed off. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Advs. For the Respondent Through: Mr. Vineet Tayal and Ms. Nishtha Wadhwa, Advs. for R-4 JUDGMENT 1. The instant Company Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Thereafter, a reply was filed by the respondent company urging its objection to the winding up petition on the ground that the legal notice under Sections 433 and 434 were not served upon the respondent at its registered office. 5. It may be apposite to note that the parties were directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre vide order dated 16.11.2015. The matter was listed for mediation on several dates 04.12.2015, 21.12.2015 and finally 05.01.2016. However, the mediation was not successful. 6. Subsequent to the mediation failing, the petitioner company moved CO. APPL. 941/2016, seeking permission of this court to withdraw the winding up petition without prejudice, and serve afresh, a legal notice upon the respondent at its registered office. The same was allowed vide order of this court dated 15.03.2016, after which a legal notice under Section 433 read with 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 was served upon the respondent company at its registered office. Following this, present winding up petition was moved before this court on 07.04.2016. SUBMISSIONS : 7. Vide order dated 04.12.2023, this court had raised a query upon the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the learned District Court at Saket. In the said Suit, the respondent had filed an Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2016, and liberty was granted to the petitioner to initiate arbitration proceedings. However, since the petitioner failed to initiate any arbitration proceedings, it is stated that the claims of the petitioner no longer remain a payable debt and have become unrecoverable. With regards to this submission, reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of The Jayabharat Credit Limited v. Jalgaon Re-rolling Industries Ltd. 1996 SCC OnLine Bom 621 wherein the court held that once a debt becomes unrecoverable as a result of the Suit being barred by limitation, the same seizes to be a payable debt. Further that, where a debt becomes barred by limitation, a winding up petition based on such debt shall not be liable to be admitted and will therefore, have to be dismissed. ANALYSIS DECISION: 9. At the outset, it is apposite to point out that the present winding up petition is a complete non-starter. A perusal of the record shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a stage as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Provided further that only such proceedings relating to cases other than winding-up, for which orders for allowing or otherwise of the proceedings are not reserved by the High Courts shall be transferred to the Tribunal [Provided also that]- (i) all proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 other than the cases relating to winding up of companies that are reserved for orders for allowing or otherwise such proceedings; or (ii) the proceedings relating to winding up of companies which have not been transferred from the High Courts; shall be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.] Provided also that proceedings relating to cases of voluntary winding up of a company where notice of the resolution by advertisement has been given under subsection (1) of section 485 of the Companies Act, 1956 but the Company has not been dissolved before the 1st April, 2017 shall continue to be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. 11. Reliance may also be placed on the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
