GRUNDFOS PUMPS INDIA PRIVATE LTD Vs. IIC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last date of hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent had argued that in terms of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 specially Rule 5 the present petition would have to be transferred and heard by the NCLT. The matter was kept for arguments today.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has refuted the contentions of the respondent. She submits that under Rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the '2016 Rules') all the petitions where the petition is served on the respondent in terms of Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 shall not be transferred to the NCLT. She submits that Rule 26 read with Rules 27 and 28 have been interpreted by the Bombay High Court in West Hills Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Neelkamal Realtors Tower Pvt. Ltd., 2017 3 MhLJ 384 to imply that the admission of the case is not necessary for application of Rule 26.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent has however stated that in view of the Rule 27 read with Form No.6 what is envisaged in these provisions is that where notice has been served on the respondent after admission of the petition they may be continued to be adjudicated by this court, otherwise the matter would have to be transferred to the NCLT. He relies upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Mr.Sanjay Goel vs. EL Forge Ltd. being CP Nos.14/2015, 239/2015, 242/2015, 94/2016 and 364/2016 dated 11.1.2017.