JUDGMENT :

Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak for learned advocate Mr. Sanjay Gupta for the petitioner.

2. Registry has wrongly shown the name of learned advocate Mr. Vishwas K. Shah for the petitioner-Kamlesh Trading Company which is a creditor of the respondent company, sought to be wound up by Company Petition No. 204/2009.

3. This petition is filed for winding up of the respondent-Company as it has failed to pay the debt of the petitioner under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.

4. This Court (Coram; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel, As His Lordship was then) issued notice on 6th October, 2009. Thereafter, this Court (Coram; Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Thaker, As His Lordship was then) admitted the matter vide order dated 11th July, 2011, however, advertisement of the petition was deferred. The Court further directed that the respondent shall not alienate the property of the company in any manner whatsoever.

5. Respondent-Kiran Processors Private Limited preferred Company Application No. 67/2016 inter-alia praying to vacate the interim relief granted in Company Petition No. 204/2009, which is pending adjudication before this Court.

6. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner herein filed Misc. Civil Application No. 136/2019 alleging breach of order dated 11th July, 2011 passed in Company Petition No. 204/2009. This Court (Coram; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav) vide order dated 23rd February, 2021 disposed of the Misc. Civil Application observing that no case of willful disobedience was made out by the petitioner.

7. It appears that thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time at the request of the parties to explore the possibilities of settlement and matter has never been heard on merits and no further progress has been made in the matter.

8. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that sufficient efforts are made to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent-Company but the same have failed and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd. rendered in of Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2020 on 15.12.2020, the proceedings of the company petition are required to be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal ['NCLT' for short].

9. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner, it appears that after the order of admission of the petition, no further orders are passed by the Court with regard to order of winding up of the company or advertisement of the petition, nor the Court has appointed the provisional Liquidator. In such circumstances and in view of the following observations of the Apex Court in case of Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd. (supra), this petition is required to be transferred to the NCTL, Ahmedabad:

"22. Given the aforesaid scheme of winding up under Chapter XX of the Companies Act, 2013, it is clear that several stages are contemplated, with the Tribunal retaining the power to control the proceedings in a winding up petition even after it is admitted. Thus, in a winding up proceeding where the petition has not been served in terms of Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 at a preadmission stage, given the beneficial result of the application of the Code, such winding up proceeding is compulsorily transferable to the NCLT to be resolved under the Code. Even post issue of notice and pre admission, the same result would ensue. However, post admission of a winding up petition and after the assets of the company sought to be wound up become in custodia legis and are taken over by the Company Liquidator, section 290 of the Companies Act, 2013 would indicate that the Company Liquidator may carry on the business of the company, so far as may be necessary, for the beneficial winding up of the company, and may even sell the company as a going concern. So long as no actual sales of the immovable or movable properties have tak