9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 was amended in the manner specified in the Schedule XI. It is pertinent to mention that in Chapter XXII of 2013, Act the provisions of the 1956 Act have not been incorporated in 2013 Act and schedule XI of the Code which had come into force has substituted Section 271 by limiting the grounds of winding up and the ground for inability to pay has been taken away by the schedule XI. It is thus patent that the jurisdiction concerning inability to pay debt w.e.f. 15.11.2015 has been taken over by the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Therefore, it is not possible to accept that the petitioner would not comply with the Rules of 2016 namely Adjudicating Authority/Transfer of Pending Proceeding Rules (supra). Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 13.01.2017 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Thereafter the Registrar was asked to complete the paper book in accordance with the provisions of Rules known as Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 and the affidavit of service was also required to be filed in terms of Rules known as Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Despite three dates fixed before the Registrar no affidavit has been filed claiming that a petition filed under Section 433(e) read with 439 of the Companies Act, 1959 must continue under the provisions of old Act. 2. We have heard the learned counsel on 10.07.2017 and have dismissed the petition. We proceed to record our reasons. It is appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en forwarded by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, for winding up of a company to a High Court and where no appeal is pending, the proceedings for winding up initiated under the Act, pursuant to section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 shall continue to be dealt with by such High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A perusal of the Rule shows that all petitions relating to winding up filed before a High Court under Section 433(e) etc. under provisions of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 where a copy of the petition has not been served on the respondent in accordance with the provisions of Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, was required to be transferred to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rights of the petitioner which has emerged from the provisions of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956. The aforesaid argument is wholly misplaced because the Companies Act, 2013 has been enforced amending the provisions concerning winding up and substituting it by Section 271 of 2013 Act. It is further appropriate to mention that Section 255 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides that the Companies Act, 2013 was amended in the manner specified in the Schedule XI. It is pertinent to mention that in Chapter XXII of 2013, Act the provisions of the 1956 Act have not been incorporated in 2013 Act and schedule XI of the Code which had come into force has substituted Section 271 by limiting the grounds of winding up and the ground f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
