JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as both the appeals are at the behest of the same appellant. Same issues are involved in the two appeals.

2. APOT/316/2023 (hereinafter referred to as the first appeal, for the sake of convenience) is at the behest of the appellant assailing an order dated January 18, 2023 passed in IA No. CA/1/2021, CP/49/2016.

3. By the order impugned in the first appeal, learned Company Court, directed transfer of CP/49/2016 to the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata (NCLT). Learned Company Court also transferred all connected applications to NCLT. Such order was passed in view of the order dated September 26, 2022 passed in CP/347/2015.

4. APOT/79/2026 is an appeal at the behest of the appellant and directed against an order dated September 26, 2022 passed in CP/347/2015 (hereinafter referred to as the second appeal, for the sake of convenience). By such order, learned Company Court, took note of (2021) 2 SCC 641 (Action Ispat and Power Private Limited Vs. Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited) and (2021) 4 SCC 435 (A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited Vs. SREI Equipment Finance Limited and Others) and transferred the winding up petition along with connected applications to the NCLT.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant was appointed by the Official Liquidator to protect and preserve the assets of the company (in liquidation). He submits that, the appellant provided security guards. Appellant raised on and submitted bills with the Official Liquidator for the services rendered. Such bills remained unpaid till date. He submits on instructions that, the appellant is still continuing to protect the assets of the company (in liquidation).

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the company (in liquidation) and all stakeholders particularly, the secured creditors stand benefitted out of the protection and preservation of the assets of the company (in liquidation) done by the appellant. He submits that, the Official Liquidator never alleged that, the appellant failed and neglected to discharge its duties and responsibilities.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant refers to Action Ispat and Power Private Limited (supra). He submits that, Action Ispat and Power Private Limited (supra) was rendered in a particular factual context. He refers to the factual context. He submits that, the Company Court, therein, noted that, the Official Liquidator incurred heavy expenses in protecting the factory premises of the company (in liquidation). It also noted the assurance given by the secured creditor to reimburse the expenses of the Official Liquidator. It is in such factual matrix that, Action Ispat and Power Private Limited (supra) should be read. Essentially, the expenses that the Official Liquidator borne should come out prior to the transfer of the winding up petition to the NCLT.

8. Referring to A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited (supra), learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the factual matrix therein. He submits that, there also, the Company Court directed transfer of the winding up petition conditionally upon the expenses of the Official Liquidator being paid. He refers to the orders of the Company Court which are reported in 2019 SCC Online Bom 10495 (Action Barter Private Limited Vs. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited and Others) and 2020 SCC Online Bom 2264 [Action Barter Private Limited Vs. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure (In Liqn)]. He submits that A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited (supra) should be read in such context.

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated November 13, 2025 passed by this Bench, in APO/36/2022 [M/S M.S. Glass Industries Limited (In Liqn) & RMC Readymix (India) Vs. The O/L]. He submits that, the essential factual matrix of Act