Karnataka High Court
Saravana Alloys Steels Private Limited vs Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd on 31 October, 2025
-1-
OSA No. 5 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SARAVANA ALLOYS STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. N SARAVAN,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS
AT 21/D, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
II STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR
BANGALORE 560 022
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURAJ SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAGNIFICO MINERALS PVT LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 75,
Digitally KHIRIK VILLAGE, MALVIYA NAGAR
signed by NEW DELHI 110 017
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
Location: FINANCE MR. RADHEY SHYAM AGGARWAL
HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS OSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956, READ WITH SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, READ WITH SECTION
434(1) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, PRAYING THIS
HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
02.04.2024 PASSED BY THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN CA 31/2024 IN COP 42/2016, (ANNEXURE-
C), ETC.
-2-
OSA No. 5 of 2024
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.08.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, D K SINGH J., PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Company Judge on Company Application No.31/2024 in Company Petition No.42/2016 whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking transfer of the proceedings in Company Petition No.42/2016 pending before this Court for initiation of winding up proceedings against the appellant to the National Company Law Tribunal (for short 'the NCLT'), Bengaluru Bench for adjudication, has been rejected.
2. The respondent-Company Magnifico Minerals Pvt. Ltd. had filed a petition in the year 2016 under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 against -3- OSA No. 5 of 2024 the appellant-Company namely, Saravana Alloys Steels Private Limited seeking an order of winding up of the appellant-Company for alleged default of Rs.4,57,61,691.31/- including interest of Rs.83,36,154/- as on 14.12.2015 due and payable by the appellant - Company towards the purported supply of goods and materials by the respondent to the appellant - Company.
3. The respondent's argument on admission of the Company Petition was concluded on 31.01.2024 before the learned Company Judge and on that day, there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant-Company. The learned Company Court adjourned the matter to 09.02.2024 to hear the appellant/respondent. On 09.02.2024, the counsel for the appellant/respondent Company sought a short accommodation and the case was adjourned to 16.02.2024 and thereafter, it was adjourned to 21.02.2024. On 21.02.2024, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent Company sought short accommodation on the premise that the respondent would apply for transfer of pending company petition to -4- OSA No. 5 of 2024 the NCLT, Bengaluru. The Company Petition was not admitted when the company application under the 5th proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 came to be filed seeking transfer of the Company Petition to the NCLT, Bengaluru.
4. The questions which fall for consideration in this appeal is that:
i. Whether admittedly, when no irreversible action has been taken pursuant to an order passed by the learned Company Judge in/of the pending company petition, can the Company Court still refuse the transfer of pending company petition to the NCLT on the ground that the company petition was filed in the year 2016 and the 5th proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 was introduced in the year 2018;
ii. Whether the pendency of the parallel proceedings in the NCLT is a condition precedent for transferring a pending company petition to the NCLT on an application by the creditor or a party to the company petition. -5- OSA No. 5 of 2024
5. Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder:
"434. Transfer of certain pending proceedings.-- (1) On such date as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf,--
(a) xxxxx
(b) xxxxx
(c) all proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), including proceedings relating to arbitration, compromise, arrangements and reconstruction, and winding up of companies, pending immediately before such date before any District Court or High Court, shall stand transferred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal may proceed to deal with such proceedings from the stage before their transfer:
Provided that only such proceedings relating to the winding up of companies shall be transferred to the Tribunal that are at a stage as may be prescribed by the Central Government:
Provided further that only such proceedings relating to cases other than winding-up, for which orders for allowing or otherwise of the proceedings are not reserved by the High Courts shall be transferred to the Tribunal:
Provided also that --
(i) all proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 other than the cases relating to the winding up of companies that are reserved for orders for allowing or otherwise such proceedings; or
(ii) the proceedings relating to the winding up of companies that have not been transferred from the High Courts;-6- OSA No. 5 of 2024
shall be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959:
Provided also that proceedings relating to cases of voluntary winding up of a company where notice of the resolution by advertisement has been given under sub-section (1) of section 485 of the Companies Act, 1956 but the company has not been dissolved before the 1st April 2017 shall continue to be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
Provided further that any party or parties to any proceedings relating to the winding up companies pending before any Court immediately before the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, may file an application for transfer of such proceedings and the Court may by order transfer such proceedings to the Tribunal and the proceedings so transferred shall be dealt with by the Tribunal as an application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016).
(emphasis supplied)"
6. The fifth proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 was added on 17.08.2018. In Action ISPAT and Power Private Limited Vs. Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited reported in (2021) 2 SCC 641, the Supreme Court after considering the earlier judgments in Innoventive Industries Ltd Vs. ICICI Bank reported in (2018) 1 SCC 407; Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. Vs. Union -7- OSA No. 5 of 2024 of India reported in (2019) 4 SCC 17; Arcelor Mittal (India) (P) Ltd., Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta reported in (2019) 2 SCC 1 and Employees Organization Vs. Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 227; Forech (India) Ltd Vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., reported in (2019) 18 SCC 549 and Kaledonia Jute & Fibres (P) Ltd. Vs. Axis Nirman & Industries Ltd., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 403 cull down the law on transfer of winding up proceedings pending before the High Court before the NCLT in Paragraph-14 to 14.4 which is extracted hereunder:
"14. What becomes clear upon a reading of the three judgments of this Court is the following:
14.1. So far as transfer of winding-up proceedings is concerned, the Code began tentatively by leaving proceedings relating to winding up of companies to be transferred to NCLT at a stage as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 14.2. This was done by the Transfer Rules, 2016 (supra) which came into force with effect from 15-
12-2016. Rules 5 and 6 referred to three types of proceedings. Only those proceedings which are at the stage of pre-service of notice of the winding- -8- OSA No. 5 of 2024 up petition stand compulsorily transferred to NCLT.
14.3. The result therefore was that post notice and pre-admission of winding-up petitions, parallel proceedings would continue under both statutes. leading to a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. This led to the introduction of the 5th proviso to Section 434(1)(c) which, as has been correctly pointed out in Kaledonia, is not restricted to any particular stage of a winding-up proceeding.
14.4. Therefore, what follows as a matter of law is that even post admission of a winding-up petition, and after the appointment of a Company Liquidator to take over the assets of a company sought to be wound up, discretion is vested in the Company Court to transfer such petition to NCLT. The question that arises before us in this case is how is such discretion to be exercised?"
7. After considering the scheme of winding up under Chapter XX of the Companies Act, 2013 wherein several stages are contemplated, the Supreme Court has held that where the petition has not been served in terms of Rule-26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 at pre- admission stage, considering the beneficial application of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short -9- OSA No. 5 of 2024 'the IBC') the winding up proceedings is compulsorily transferable to NCLT to be resolved under the Court. It is further held that even post issue of notice and pre-
admission, the same reason/result would follow. However, in 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. If nothing irreversible is done which would warrant the Company Court staying its hands on a transfer application made to it by creditor or any party to the proceedings, the Company Court should transfer the Company Petition to the NCLT.
8. Paragraph 25 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"25. 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
- 10 -OSA No. 5 of 2024
where the petition has not been served in terms of Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 at a pre-admission stage, given the beneficial result of the application of the Code, such winding-up proceeding is compulsorily transferable to 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 taken place, nothing irreversible is done which would warrant a Company Court staying its hands on a transfer application made to it by a creditor or any party to the proceedings. It is only where the winding-up proceedings have reached a stage where it would be irreversible, making it impossible to set the clock back that the Company Court must proceed with the winding up, instead of transferring the proceedings to NCLT to now be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Whether this stage is reached would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case."
9. The aforesaid principle for transfer of winding up petition to the NCLT under the IBC has again been reiterated in the case of A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited Vs. SREI Equipment Finance Limited and Others reported in 2021 (4) SCC 435.
- 11 -
OSA No. 5 of 2024
10. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited (supra) has held that the IBC is a special statute to deal with revival of companies that are in red, the winding up only being resorted to in the case all attempts have been failed. It is further held that the Companies Act is a general statute dealing with the companies, including companies that are in red, the IBC is not only a special statute which must prevail in the event of conflict, in the light of non-obstante clause contained in Section 238 of the Companies Act, 2013 which provides that in case of conflict, the provisions of the IBC would prevail.
11. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"16. Having heard the learned counsel for all the parties, it is important to restate a few fundamentals. Given the object of the IBC as delineated in paras 25 to 28 of Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India ["Swiss Ribbons"]. it is clear that the IBC is a special statute dealing with revival of companies that are in the red, winding up only being resorted to in case all attempts of revival fail. Vis-à-vis the Companies Act, which is a general
- 12 -OSA No. 5 of 2024
statute dealing with companies, including companies that are in the red, the IBC is not only a special statute which must prevail in the event of conflict, but has a non obstante clause contained in Section 238, which makes it even clearer that in case of conflict, the provisions of the IBC will prevail."
12. Further after taking note of the judgment in Action ISPAT and Power Private Limited (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 25 has held that the petition either under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is an independent proceeding which is unaffected by winding-up proceedings that may be filed by the same company. It is said that given the object sought to be achieved by the IBC, only where a company in winding-up is near corporate death in that case, only the transfer of winding-up proceedings should not take place to NCLT. If the corporate death is inevitable, then no purpose would be served by transferring the pending Company Petition to the IBC.
13. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
- 13 -OSA No. 5 of 2024
"25. A conspectus of the aforesaid authorities would show that a petition either under Section 7 or Section 9 IBC is an independent proceeding which is unaffected by winding-up proceedings that may be filed qua the same company. Given the object sought to be achieved by the IBC, it is clear that only where a company in winding up is near corporate death that no transfer of the winding-up proceeding would then take place to NCLT to be tried as a proceeding under the IBC. Short of an irresistible conclusion that corporate death is inevitable, every effort should be made to resuscitate the corporate debtor in the larger public interest, which includes not only the workmen of the corporate debtor, but also its creditors and the goods it produces in the larger interest of the economy of the country. It is, thus, not possible to accede to the argument on behalf of the appellant that given Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956/Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013, once a winding-up petition is admitted, the winding- up petition should trump any subsequent attempt at revival of the company through a Section 7 or Section 9 petition filed under the IBC. While it is true that Sections 391 to 393 of the Companies Act. 1956 may, in a given factual circumstance, be availed of to pull the company out of the red, Section 230(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 is instructive and provides as follows:
"230. Power to compromise or make arrangements with creditors and members.-(1) Where a compromise or arrangement is proposed-
(a) between a company and its creditors or any class of them; or
- 14 -OSA No. 5 of 2024
(b) between a company and its members or any class of them. the Tribunal may, on the application of the company or of any creditor or member of the company, or in the case of a company which is being wound up, of the liquidator, appointed under this Act or under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the case may be, order a meeting of the creditors or class of creditors, or of the members or class of members, as the case may be, to be called, held and conducted in such manner as the Tribunal directs.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, arrangement includes a reorganisation of the company's share capital by the consolidation of shares of different classes or by the division of shares into shares of different classes, or by both of those methods." What is clear by this Section is that a compromise or arrangement can also be entered into in an IBC proceeding if liquidation is ordered. However, what is of importance is that under the Companies Act, it is only winding up that can be ordered, whereas under the IBC, the primary emphasis is on revival of the corporate debtor through infusion of a new management.
26. On facts also, in the present case, nothing can be said to have become irretrievable in the sense mentioned in para 25 of Action Ispat."
14. The said judgments have been followed by the High Court of Calcutta in Maheshwary Ispat Ltd. And Alaknanda Sponge Private Limited Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court reported in 2022 SCC Online
- 15 -
OSA No. 5 of 20241409, High Court of Bombay in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Classic Diamonds (India) Ltd. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine BOM 1263 and by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Col. P K Uberoi(Retd.) & Anr. Vs. Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5942.
15. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Maheshwary Ispat (Supra), transferred the pending company petition which was pending for more than six years on the ground that there was nothing to demonstrate that an irreversible situation had arisen which would justify the High Court to retain the proceedings of the Company Petition. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"7. I find that, despite the pendency of the winding up proceedings for more than six years, there is nothing to demonstrate that an irreversible situation has arisen which justifies this Court in retaining this proceeding. None of the assets of the company (in liquidation) have been sold. There is nothing in the Status Report filed by the Official Liquidator to demonstrate that the Official Liquidator has taken any steps whatsoever to make it impossible to set the clock back warranting this Court to proceed with the winding up notwithstanding the embargo now created under the aforesaid
- 16 -OSA No. 5 of 2024
section. There are no facts which have been brought to the attention of this Court either by the Official Liquidator or any of the parties which permits this Court in retaining jurisdiction."
16. The Bombay High Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. V. Classic Diamonds (India) Ltd. (supra) has held that as no steps have been taken by the Official Liquidator, the post admission of the Company Petition which can be said to be irreversible should be transferred to the NCLT. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"8. In view of the fifth proviso to section 434(1)(c), any party or parties to any proceedings relating to the winding up of company pending before any court may file an application for transfer such proceedings and the court may, by order, transfer such proceedings to the Tribunal which was then to be dealt with by the Tribunal as an application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It is observed from the affidavit filed on behalf of the official liquidator and the submissions made by the learned counsel that the official liquidator had handed over possession of the registered office of the company, which was the only property of which the official liquidator had taken possession, to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., pursuant to order dated January 23, 2018 passed in Company Application Lodging No. 606 of 2017, and that,
- 17 -OSA No. 5 of 2024
as on the date of this application, is not in possession of any of the properties of the company and the properties of the company are in the possession of the applicant- creditor, who, statedly, is an assignee of Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. That, no notice inviting claims of creditors/workers, etc., under rule 148 of the said Rules has been published. That, in the facts, no steps have been taken by the official liquidator which can be said to be irreversible, such that the winding up proceedings have to be proceeded with by this court. It is only where the winding up proceedings have reached the stage where it would be irreversible, making it impossible to set the clock back, that the company court must proceed with the winding up instead of transferring the proceedings to the National Company Law Tribunal to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In the facts of this case, in my view, there is, therefore, no question of any such irreversible stage having reached. Moreover, as submitted by Mr. Siwach for the petitioner in the winding up petition, that since the official liquidator has not invited any claims from the creditors or workers of the company in liquidation, the transfer of proceedings to the National Company Law Tribunal would ensure speedier resolution of the corporate insolvency resolution process while also allowing for a more technical consideration. of issues and that further proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal allows for the creditors to be active and final determinants of how the insolvency resolution process would take place. This court had also expressed apprehensions in respect of the claims of the workmen
- 18 -OSA No. 5 of 2024
as the official liquidator had not invited any claims in respect of the creditors/workmen as per the requirement of rule 148 of the said Rules. Mr. Khan for the official liquidator and Ms. Cheema for the applicant have clarified that section 53(1)(b) read with section 15(1)(c) read with regulations 6(2) (c) and 12(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the "IBC") would take care of the same. Therefore, in my view, exercise of power under the fifth proviso to section 434(1)(c) would be appropriate. "
17. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Col. P K Uberoi(Retd.) & Anr. Vs. Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) wherein it has been held that even post admission of winding up petition and the appointment of Official Liquidator so long as no actual sale of movable or immovable property of the company in liquidation has taken place and nothing irreversible is done, the proceedings before the Company Court should be transferred to NCLT. Paragraphs 15, 16 24, 25 and 26 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
"15. It is no longer res-integra that unless irreversible steps, such as the sale of assets have occurred, pending winding up proceedings ought to
- 19 -OSA No. 5 of 2024
be transferred to the NCLT in terms of the 5th proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the 2013 Act.
16. The Supreme Court in Action Ispat case has held that where winding up petition pending before the High Court has not progressed to an advanced stage, it ought to be transferred to the NCLT. The Supreme Court has held that even post-admission of a winding up Petition, and after the appointment of a liquidator, the discretion is vested in the Company Court to transfer such Petition to the NCLT. It was emphasised by the Court that even post admission of winding up Petition and appointment of liquidator, as long as no actual sale of movable for immovable property of the company in liquidation has taken place and nothing irreversible is done, proceedings before the Company Court can be transferred to the NCLT. The Court cautioned that it is only when the winding up proceedings have reached an irreversible state making it impossible for the clock to be turned back, should the Company Court proceed with the winding up instead of a transfer to the NCLT. The relevant extract of the Actions Ispat case is set out below:
14. What becomes clear upon a reading of the three judgments of this Court is the following:
14.1. So far as transfer of winding-up proceedings is concerned, the Code began
- 20 -OSA No. 5 of 2024
tentatively by leaving proceedings relating to winding up of companies to be transferred to NCLT at a stage as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 14.2. This was done by the Transfer Rules, 2016 (supra) which came into force with effect from 15-12-2016. Rules 5 and 6 referred to three types of proceedings. Only those proceedings which are at the stage of pre-service of notice of the winding-up petition stand compulsorily transferred to NCLT.
14.3. The result therefore was that post notice and pre-admission of winding-up petitions, parallel proceedings would continue under both statutes. leading to a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. This led to the introduction of the 5th proviso to Section 434(1)(c) which, as has been correctly pointed out in Kaledonia, is not restricted to any particular stage of a winding-up proceeding.
14.4. Therefore, what follows as a matter of law is that even post admission of a winding-up petition, and after the appointment of a Company Liquidator to take over the assets of a company sought to be wound up, discretion is vested in the Company Court to transfer such petition to NCLT. The question that arises before us in
- 21 -
OSA No. 5 of 2024this case is how is such discretion to be exercised?
xxx xxx
xxx xxx
25. 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 pre- admission stage, given the beneficial result of the application of the Code, such winding-up proceeding is compulsorily transferable to 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 taken place, nothing irreversible is done which would warrant a Company Court staying its hands on a transfer application made to
- 22 -
OSA No. 5 of 2024it by a creditor or any party to the proceedings. It is only where the winding-up proceedings have reached a stage where it would be irreversible, making it impossible to set the clock back that the Company Court must proceed with the winding up, instead of transferring the proceedings to NCLT to now be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Whether this stage is reached would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case."
[emphasis supplied]
18. Considering the facts of the present case here, even the Company Petition is not admitted when the application under Section 434 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013 came to filed seeking transfer of pending Company Petition No.42 0f 2016 before the NCLT. It is evident that no irreversible steps have been taken in the Company Petition which would not warrant transfer of the Company Petition to the NCLT.
19. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Action Ispat and Power Private Limited (supra) and A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited (supra), we are of the considered view that the
- 23 -
OSA No. 5 of 2024rejection of the Company Application No.31 of 2024 by the learned Company Judge refusing the transfer of Company Petition before the NCLT is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the several other High Courts and therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and allow the Company Application No.31 of 2024 filed in Company Petition No.42 of 2016 and order transfer of the Company Petition to the NCLT, Bengaluru. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE BKV/RKA