A creditor or a group of creditors can be considered as a party to an
application seeking transfer of case from the High Court to the National Company
Law Tribunal regarding the winding up of a company. The Supreme Court bench
consisting of Hon’ble Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon’ble Justice A.S. Bopanna and
Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian, delivered an excellent judgment regarding
requirements of transferability of a case in the matter of M/S Kaledonia Jute
and Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Axis Nirman and Industries & Ors
. [Civil Appeal No.
3735 of 2020].
The respondents filed a petition before the High Court under Section 433 of the
Companies Act, 1956, pleading for the winding up of the first respondent company
as it was unable to pay debts. The court ordered the admission of the petition
and directed for the publication of the advertisement of the petition in
accordance with Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. Pursuant to the
publication, the court directed the winding up of the company and appointed an
official liquidator directing him to take over the assets and books of accounts
of the Company.
The respondent filed an application for recalling the order but
the liquidator opposed the application on the grounds that the respondent owed
money close to Rs. 27 crores to various creditors. In the light of this, the
court kept the order of winding up in abeyance but directed the liquidator to
continue to keep in custody the assets of the company.
The appellant, who claimed to be a creditor of the respondent moved an
application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 7 of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, that the respondent had failed to pay
a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs to the appellant despite repeated demands.
moved an application seeking transfer of this case from the High Court to the NCLT which was rejected by the HC on the grounds that the requirement for
winding up order had already been passed. It was against this order of the HC
that the financial creditor came up with a civil appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in its decision, reiterated the provisions relating to the
transfer of case regarding winding up of company and stated that the
transferability of a winding up proceeding, both under Rule 5 as well as under
Rule 6, is directly linked to the service of the winding up
petition on the respondent under Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
If the winding up petition has already been served on the respondent in terms of
Rule 26 of the 1959 Rules, the proceedings are not liable to be transferred. But
if service of the winding up petition on the respondent in terms of Rule 26 had
not been completed, such winding up proceedings, whether they are under Clause
(c) of Section 433 or under Clause (a) and (f) of Section 433, shall
peremptorily be transferred to the NCLT.
After this, the court dealt with who will be considered as a party
. Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1959 states
that an order for winding up shall operate in favour of all the creditors and
all of the contributors for the company as if it had been on the joint petition
of a creditor and of a contributory. Thus the court stated that winding up
proceedings are actually proceedings in rem and the entire body of creditors
will be a party to the same.
Hence, herein the court held that the appellant was infact a party and that the transfer was not restricted by the stage of
proceeding as it was covered by the 5th proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the act.
Relying on Forest India Ltd. c. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [(2019
2 SCR 477], the court found that parallel proceedings in the HC and NCLT would
demolish the entire object of the IBC, hence, the petitioner should be entitled
to seek transfer of the pending winding up proceedings against the respondent.
Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the case was transferred to the NCLT.
Written By: Prime Legal Law Firm
Off Address: 39/2, 2nd floor, K G Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560001
Phone no: +9986386002, Email: [email protected]