By the Court.—This Intra Court appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2006 has been preferred by the appellant raising the issue as to whether the learned Company Judge could proceed to hear the Company Petition No. 57 of 2001 that was instituted at Allahabad in relation to a Company, that is the Appellant No. 1, which has its registered office at 6, Mall Avenue, Lucknow, and as to whether the Hon’ble The Chief Justice could have passed an administrative order on 30th November, 2005 as endorsed on the order of reference of the learned Single Judge dated 6.10.2005, thereby consolidating and directing that including the Company Petition No. 57 of 2001 be heard alongwith all matters at Allahabad, itself.

2. The principal ground of challenge raised in the appeal is that the registered office of the appellant No. 1 being at Lucknow, the territorial jurisdiction for entertaining a petition for winding up on behalf of the respondent No. 1 could have been only instituted before the learned Company Judge at Lucknow as the Head Quarters and the registered office of the Company were at Lucknow, and keeping in view the definition as contained in Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 2(11) thereof, the Company petition for winding up could have been instituted only at Lucknow. In sum and substance, it is urged that the territorial jurisdiction for the Institution of the Company petition up to the stage of the passing of the winding up order was entertainable in the High Court only at Lucknow and not at Allahabad. For this, reliance is placed on the United Provinces High Court’s Amalgamation Order, 1948 and it is urged, that even if the petition was to be heard at Allahabad, it had to be instituted at Lucknow first and the Hon’ble The Chief Justice exercising powers under the IInd proviso to Section 14 could have transferred the petition to Allahabad through a judicial order as interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Manju Varma v. State of U.P., 2005 (1) SCC 73.

3. The main argument to sustain the aforesaid submission is based on the Division Bench order dated 14th March, 2005 in the same Company petition which was an order of reference on this very issue. It is urged, that the learned Company Judge has proceeded to hear the Company petition in complete violation of the said order and the administrative orders of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice dated 30th November, 2005 is in teeth of the said judicial pronouncement as well as the statutory provision referred to hereinabove. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge fell into an error by referring to the order of the Apex Court dated 3rd November, 2004 which stood vacated and withdrawn on 4th May 2005, and in such circumstances the jurisdiction could not have been assumed by the learned Single Judge to deal with Company Petition No. 57 of 2001 which was statutorily and legally impermissible.

4. Sri Anil Tiwari learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Apurva Tiwari and Sri Nitin Sharma have invited the attention of the Court to the following decisions to substantiate the submission that the entire exercise conducted by the learned Single Judge is coram non judice :

(i) Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, 2012 (4) SCC 307; para 22.

(ii) Jagmittar Singh Bhagat v. Director, Health Services Haryana, 2013 (10) SCC 136; para 9-11.

(iii) Chief Engineer Hydel Project v. Ravinder Nath, 2008 (2) SCC 350; para 23-28.

(iv) H.P. Gupta v. Hirala, 1970 (1) SCC 437; para 11.

(v) H.V. Jayaram v. Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India, 2000 (2) SCC 202; para 8-12.

(vi) Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd., 1994 (1) SCC 34; para 18.

(vii) Vimal Kumar v. M/s. Bhilwara Wooltax Ltd., 1993 SCC Online Raj 78; para 5-6.

(viii) Manju Varma v. State of U.P., 2005 (1) SCC 73, para 19.

5. Refuting the aforesaid submissions raised Sri Ashok Mehta learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent and the official liquidato