Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (2.50 seconds)
Action Ispat And Power Pvt. Ltd. vs Shyam Metalics And Energy Limited on 15 December, 2020 cites

Jaipur Metals And Electricals ... vs Jaipur Metals And Electricals Ltd. Thru ... on 12 December, 2018

17. The resultant position in law is that, as a first step, when the Code was enacted, only winding up petitions, where no notice under Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules was served, were to be transferred to the NCLT and treated as petitions under the Code. However, on a working of the Code, the Government realized that parallel proceedings in the High Courts as well as before the adjudicating authority in the Code would stultify the objective sought to be achieved by the Code, which is to resuscitate the corporate debtors who are in the red. In accordance with this objective, the Rules kept being amended, until finally Section 434 was itself substituted in 2018, in which a proviso was added by which even in winding up petitions where notice has been served and which are pending in the High Courts, any person could apply for transfer of such petitions to the NCLT under the 19 Code, which would then have to be transferred by the High Court to the adjudicating authority and treated as an insolvency petition under the Code. This statutory scheme has been referred to, albeit in the context of Section 20 of the SICA, in our judgment which is contained in Jaipur Metals & Electricals Employees Organization Through General Secretary Mr. Tej Ram Meena v. Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd. Through its Managing Director, being a judgment by a Division Bench of this Court dated 12.12.2018.” Resultantly, the Court thereafter held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 52 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next