M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

1. This company petition had been filed on 24.9.2014 by M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited (for short 'the petitioner') under Section 433(e) & (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 to wind up M/s. Basal Steels and Power Pvt. Ltd., ('the respondent'). On 26.8.2014, this company petition had been adjourned sine die, taking note of the fact that at that time, Appeal No. 117 of 2014 filed by the respondent against an order dated 23.12.2013 in BIFR Case No. 64 of 2012 was pending before AAIFR constituted under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA').

2. However, on 6.7.2017 this Court passed an order in this company petition recalling the order dated 26.8.2014 and directing that there is no impediment to proceeding with it in as much as the SICA was repealed and the Forums created there under were dissolved by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 (Act 1 of 2004) which was brought into force by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'the IBC). This Court also held that once the very Forums created under the SICA did not exist, the stay of operation as was available under Section 22 of the SICA would not be available to the respondent-company beyond a period of more than six (6) months in terms of the 8th Schedule notified under Section 252 of IBC. It also granted six weeks time to the respondent company to file counter holding that there is no impediment for company petition to be considered on merits.

3. Subsequent thereto, the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short 'the NCLT') passed an order dated 19.7.2017 at the instance of a third party M/s. Bharat Steel Industries against the respondent company in CP. No. (D3) 77/6/HDB/2016 under Section 9 of IBC invoking Sections 10 to 22 and 25 of the IBC as under:

"(a) We hereby declare the following Moratorium by prohibiting the following actions:

(i) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceeding against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any Court of law tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority.

(ii)............."

4. Counsel for respondent-company, placing reliance on the above clause, contends that the Moratorium imposed by the NCLT under the IBC applies to continuation of winding up proceedings before any Court of law, this it applies to this Court as well; that this power of the NCLT is traceable to Section 14(1)(a) of the Act; and in view of the said Moratorium, this company petition cannot be continued/proceeded with and adjudicated by this Court. He also placed reliance on Section 238 of the IBC and contended that the said Act will override any provisions in any other law including the Companies Act, 1956, inconsistent with the IBC. He placed reliance on Yellagola Ramanarasaiah v. G. Sadanand and others, 1989 (3) ALT 610.

5. On the other hand, Counsel for petitioner in the company petition however refuted the said contentions and pointed out that Section 238 of IBC needs to be read with Section 255 of IBC which made amendments to the Companies Act, 2013 as specified in 11th Schedule; that a proviso has been added to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013 stating that only such proceedings relating to winding up of companies pending on the file of the High Court shall stand transferred to the Tribunal as may be prescribed by the Central Government, that the Central Government issued Notifications dated 7.12.2016 under Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 and 29.6.2017 under Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 239(1) of IBC directing transfer of only those winding up petitions pending before the High Court as on 15.12.2016 wherein petitions have not been served to the respondents as per Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959; since in the present case, notices in the company petition had already been served on t