Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. vs Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 726

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, K.M.JOSEPH, KRISHNA MURARI
Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Arjun Nanda, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. J Amal Anand, Adv. Ms. Aayushi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Singh, AOR Mr. Anuj Berry, Adv. Ms. Misha, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kant, Adv. Ms. Anusha Ramesh, Adv. Ms. Prabh Simran Kaur, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR

Judgement Key Points

How to exercise the discretion to transfer winding up proceedings from the Company Court to the NCLT under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013? What is the stage at which winding up proceedings can be transferred to the NCLT according to the 5th proviso to Section 434(1)(c) and related Rules? What are the circumstances under which post-admission winding up petitions with assets in custodia legis may still be transferred to the NCLT?

How to exercise the discretion to transfer winding up proceedings from the Company Court to the NCLT under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013?

What is the stage at which winding up proceedings can be transferred to the NCLT according to the 5th proviso to Section 434(1)(c) and related Rules?

What are the circumstances under which post-admission winding up petitions with assets in custodia legis may still be transferred to the NCLT?

JUDGMENT :

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 10.10.2019 by which a Single Judge’s order dated 14.01.2019 transferring a winding up proceeding pending before the High Court to the National Company Law Tribunal [“NCLT”] was upheld. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals are as follows:

“ORDER

27.08.2018

1. This petition is filed under sections 433(e) and (f), 434 and 439 of the Company Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking winding up of the respondent company.

2. It has been pleaded in the petition that the respondent company had approached the petitioner company for suppl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 726

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, K.M.JOSEPH, KRISHNA MURARIAction Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusShyam Metalics and Energy Ltd. – Respondent

How to exercise the discretion to transfer winding up proceedings from the Company Court to the NCLT under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013?

What is the stage at which winding up proceedings can be transferred to the NCLT according to the 5th proviso to Section 434(1)(c) and related Rules?

What are the circumstances under which post-admission winding up petitions with assets in custodia legis may still be transferred to the NCLT?

Cases Referred (2)

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, K.M.JOSEPH, KRISHNA MURARI
Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd. – Respondent