The NCLT vide order dated 08.02.

2018, dismissed the petition filed by the applicant,

stating that the OL had already been appointed by this court and that hence an IRP cannot
be appointed where a corporate debtor is already undergoing liquidation process.

The application can be withdrawn on the request of the Applicant before admission by the
NCLT under Rule 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating
Authority) Rules, 2016. Also withdrawal may be permitted by NCLT at a later stage under
section 12A and under Regulation 30A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate
Person) Regulation, 2016. However, the application for withdrawal may not be permitted
once the Resolution plan is approved (Kundan Care Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amit Gupta vide
NCLAT Delhi Judgment dated 30.09.2020 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
653/2020). but, the withdrawal may be permitted during the Liquidation process
( Navaneetha Krishnan v Central Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another vide NCLAT
[Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 288 & 289 of 2018)

under proviso to section 434(c) of the Companies Act, SC has to mandatorily transfer
pending winding up petitions to NCLT. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme
court in the case of Forech India Ltd. v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co.Ltd.

the Bombay High Court in Jotun India Private Limited & Ors. v. PSL Limited., (2018) 2
Comp LJ 222 (Bom) has stated that since the objective of the IBC is to provide financial
creditors with powers to determine the manner of recovery of monies, by not transferring
the case, the court would be preventing such creditors from exercising their rights.

hat this court has to transfer the matter where such an application is filed for transfer even
if an order for winding up of the respondent company has been passed. 

power to transfer such matters under proviso to section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act,
2013 is purely discretionary. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Jaipur Metals & Electricals Employees Organisation v. Jaipur Metals
& Electricals Ltd.(supra) to contend that the Supreme Court did not transfer the winding
up petitions from the High Court.

Parallel proceedings

Good afternoon ma’am,

I have not been able to find cases with the exact factual situation as you had mentioned,
However, as per my research it appears that whenever there are parallel proceedings ongoing
the supreme court has usually transferred it to the NCLT.
The Bombay High Court in *Jotun India Private Limited & Ors. v. PSL Limited*, (2018)
2 Comp LJ 222 (Bom) has stated that since the objective of the IBC is to provide financial
creditors with powers to determine the manner of recovery of monies, by not transferring the
case, the court would be preventing such creditors from exercising their rights. However, the
power to transfer is discretionary and they are not obligated to do so.

In *Bank of India v. Unknown*, O/OJA/17/2010 ( Gujarat HC)- Appellants were allowed to

withdraw their appeal from the High court, in order for them to be able to make their
representations to the official liquidator. However in case, they were not satisfied with the
findings of the official liquidator, the appellants would have the liberty to challenge it in
accordance with the law.

Ma’am I am in my second year and have not yet covered company law, so I’m not sure if I’m
researching in the right direction. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can help
with. I have covered CPC and would be able to help with that

Thank you Lor for everything please help me have a breakthrough in my academics with an
astonishing GPA and really really good publications.