Case: JAIPUR METALS AND ELECTRICALS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION THRU GENERAL SECRETARY MR. TEJ RAM MEENA Vs. JAIPUR METALS AND ELECTRICALS LTD. THRU ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

3. This case has had a chequered history. On 30.09.1997, the account of the Respondent No. 1 company had become aasset, and since the company?s net worth had turned negative, a reference was made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ( ?BIFR?) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ( ?SIC Act?). On 26.09.2002, the BIFR was of the prima facie opinion that the company ought to be wound up, which opinion was forwarded to the High Court. The High Court ultimately registered the case as Company Petition No. 19/2009. The Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) acquired substantially all the financial debts of Respondent No. 1. The State of Rajasthan tried to revive the company, but with no success. Ultimately, in a writ petition filed by a workers? union, being Writ Petition No. 504/2000, the High Court, on 07.12.2017, directed the Official Liquidator to be provisionally attached to the Court, and to join in the evaluation of the value of goods and material lying in the factory premises of the company so that dues of the workmen could be paid.In the meanwhile, on 11.01.2018, the Respondent No. 3 herein preferred an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency Code, stating that it had an assigned debt of INR 356 crores owed to it by the Respondent No. 1. Considering the fact that the debt was admitted by the company and that till date no liquidation order had been passed in the winding up proceedings that were pending before the High Court, the NCLT held, referring to theclause contained in Section 238 of the Insolvency Code, that it was satisfied that the conditions of Section 7 had been fulfilled and that, therefore, the application should be admitted. Accordingly, a moratorium was declared in terms of Section 14 of the Code and an interim resolution professional was appointed.Meanwhile, in Company Petition No. 19/2009 and other connected matters, being various writ petitions that were filed by labour unions, the High Court, by an interim order dated 26.04.2018, stayed implementation of the order passed by the NCLT on 13.04.2018. Against this order, a Special Leave Petition ( ?SLP?) was preferred in which this Court, on 09.05.2018, dismissed the SLP as withdrawn and directed the petitioner to make submissions before the High Court in the pending company petition and allied matters. The High Court then passed the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2018, in which it refused to transfer the winding up proceedings pending before it, and set aside the NCLT order dated 13.04.2018, stating that it had been passed without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petitions and the company petition were placed for further orders on 05.07.2018. On 16.07.2018, this Court issued notice and stayed the operation of the impugned judgment.

Court's reasoning:
Be that as it may, since this SLP raises important questions of law which need to be decided at the earliest, we have disregarded this preliminary objection.It is clear that under Section 434 as substituted by the Eleventh Schedule to the Code vide notification dated 15.11.2016, all proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013 which relate to winding up of companies and which are pending immediately before such date as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf shall stand transferred to the NCLT. The stage at which such proceedings are to be transferred to the NCLT is such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.When Rules 5 and 6 of the 2016 Transfer Rules (unamended) are read, it is clear that three types of proceedings are referred to. Under Rule 5(1), petitions which relate to winding up under clause (e) of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground of inability to pay debts that are pending before the High Court are to be transferred to the NCLT in case the petition has not been served on the respondent. They shall then be treated as applications under Sections 7, 8, or 9 of the Code and dealt with in accordance with Part II of the Code. Similarly, all petitions filed under clauses (a) and (f) of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 pending before the High Court, in which the petition has not been served on the respondents, shall be transferred to the NCLT. Only such petitions will continue to be treated as petitions under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The third category of cases dealt with by Rules 5 and 6 is contained in Rule 5(2). This category relates to cases where the BIFR has forwarded an opinion to the High Court to wind up a company under Section 20 of the SIC Act. All such cases, whatever be the stage, shall continue to be dealt with by the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the SIC Act.It is clear that the present case relates to Rule 5(2) alone. Despite the fact that Section 20 of the SIC Act speaks of a company being wound up under the Companies Act, 1956 under the just and equitable provision, which is Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, yet, since cases that fall under Section 20 of the SIC Act are dealt with separately under Rule 5(2), they cannot be treated as petitions that have been filed under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, which are separately specified under Rule 6. The High Court is therefore not correct in treating petitions that are pursuant to Section 20 of the SIC Act as being pursuant to Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 and applying Rule 6 of the 2016 Transfer Rules.However, though the language of Rule 5(2) is plain enough, it has been argued before us that Rule 5 was substituted on 29.06.2017, as a result of which, Rule 5(2) has been omitted. The effect of the omission of Rule 5(2) is not to automatically transfer all cases under Section 20 of the SIC Act to the NCLT, as otherwise, a specific rule would have to be framed transferring such cases to the NCLT, as has been done in Rule 5(1). The real reason for omission of Rule 5(2) in the substituted Rule 5 is because it is necessary to state, only once, on the repeal of the SIC Act, that proceedings under Section 20 of the SIC Act shall continue to be dealt with by the High Court. It was unnecessary to continue Rule 5(2) even after29.06.2017 as on 15.12.2016, all pending cases under Section 20 of the SIC Act were to continue to be dealt with by the High Court before which such cases were pending. Since there could be no opinion by the BIFR under Section 20 of the SIC Act after 01.12.2016, when the SIC Act was repealed, it was unnecessary to continue Rule 5(2) as, on 15.12.2016, all pending proceedings under Section 20 of the SIC Act were to continue with the High Court and would continue even thereafter. This is further made clear by the amendment to Section 434(1)(c), with effect from 17.08.2018, where any party to a winding up proceeding pending before a Court immediately before this date may file an application for transfer of such proceedings, and the Court, at that stage, may, by order, transfer such proceedings to the NCLT. The proceedings so transferred would then be dealt with by the NCLT as an application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Code. It is thus clear that under the scheme of Section 434 (as amended) and Rule 5 of the 2016 Transfer Rules, all proceedings under Section 20 of the SIC Act pending before the High Court are to continue as such until a party files an application before the High Court for transfer of such proceedings post 17.08.2018. Once this is done, the High Court must transfer such proceedings to the NCLT which will then deal with such proceedings as an application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Code.The High Court judgment, therefore, though incorrect in applying Rule 6 of the 2016 Transfer Rules, can still be supported on this aspect with a reference to Rule 5(2) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013, as amended, with effect from 17.08.2018.However, this does not end the matter. It is clear that Respondent No. 3 has filed a Section 7 application under the Code on 11.01.2018, on which an order has been passed admitting such application by the NCLT on 13.04.2018. This proceeding is an independent proceeding which has nothing to do with the transfer of pending winding up proceedings before the High Court. It was open for Respondent No. 3 at any time before a winding up order is passed to apply under Section 7 of the Code. This is clear from a reading of Section 7 together with Section 238 of the Code which reads asProvisions of this Code to override other laws.—The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any suchare of the view that the NCLT was absolutely correct in applying Section 238 of the Code to an independent proceeding instituted by a secured financial creditor, namely, the Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. This being the case, it is difficult to comprehend how the High Court could have held that the proceedings before the NCLT were without jurisdiction.