{"id":213657,"date":"2019-04-18T16:44:11","date_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:14:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=213657"},"modified":"2019-04-18T16:44:11","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:14:11","slug":"constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitutionality of Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013 challenged; SC issues notice"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Sanjiv Khanna, J has issued notice to the Centre in a writ petition challenging\u00a0the Constitutional validity of Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013<\/a> qua Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, to the extent that Section 327 (7) renders the meaning of the Explanation (II) to Section 53 of the Code meaningless.<\/p>\n

The petition was filed by a group of workmen comprising the Moser Baer Karamchari Union. Swarnendu Chatterjee and Shriya Maini, the advocates appearing for the Union argued before the Court that since Section 327(7) bars the application of Section 326 and Section 327 Companies Act, 2013 to the proceedings under the Code, it denies the workmen their legitimate dues for the services rendered in the company for a long period of time, which runs contrary to the concept to Right to Livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n

The Union also submitted that the Legislation undertaken for the benefit of the labour or workmen cannot be so construed so as to prejudiced the right and welfare of the labour. It would be an illegitimate method of interpretation of a statute or any provision whose dominant purpose is to protect the workmen. The petition read,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe present provision; Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013 creates an artificial embargo by ousting the application of Section 326 of Companies Act, 2013 to the proceedings under IBC, 2016 which results in exclusion of “Workmen Dues” which results in violation of Right to Livelihood as the statutory dues which are rights of every employee\/workmen gets denied.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It was argued that \u201cby not defining “Workmen Dues” in the Code itself and also by debarring the application of companies Act by the impugned Section, a void has been created, with respect to the definition of workmen dues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.\u00a0 On the other hand, by excluding the applicability of Companies Act, especially Sections 326 and 327 from the proceedings under the Code, it has created an ambiguity as it fails to define as to what will constitute “Workmen’s Dues” under the Code, being in stark violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

The petition stated,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cwhen Legislature in its wisdom has categorically mentioned that the definition of workmen dues will be taken\/borrowed\/shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013, Section 327(7) frustrates the object and purpose of the explanation (II) which results in conflict between two central statutes and ultimately results in denial of statutory dues of the workmen such as gratuity, pension, provided fund and all other wages and salaries which have been guaranteed under Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013, in effect rendering the Companies Act and its applicability to the Code to a level of a mere rubber stamp. Such denial in effect actually frustrates the social welfare aspect of the beneficial provision which results in denial of hard earned money and welfare rights of the workmen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: The bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Sanjiv Khanna, J has issued notice to the Centre in a writ petition <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1188,2],"tags":[27634,8911,34915,34916,34914],"class_list":["post-213657","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot_off_the_press","category-news","tag-companies-act","tag-labour-law","tag-right-to-livelihood","tag-wlefare-legislation","tag-workmen-dues"],"yoast_head":"\nConstitutionality of Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013 challenged; SC issues notice | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Constitutionality of Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013 challenged; SC issues notice\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: The bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Sanjiv Khanna, J has issued notice to the Centre in a writ petition\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-04-18T11:14:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/\",\"name\":\"Constitutionality of Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013 challenged; SC issues notice | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-04-18T11:14:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Constitutionality of Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013 challenged; SC issues notice\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\",\"name\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\"},\"description\":\"Senior Associate Editor\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Constitutionality of Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013 challenged; SC issues notice | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Constitutionality of Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013 challenged; SC issues notice","og_description":"Supreme Court: The bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Sanjiv Khanna, J has issued notice to the Centre in a writ petition","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-04-18T11:14:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prachi Bhardwaj","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/","name":"Constitutionality of Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013 challenged; SC issues notice | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2019-04-18T11:14:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/constitutionality-of-section-327-7-of-the-companies-act-2013-challenged-sc-issues-notice\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Constitutionality of Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013 challenged; SC issues notice"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942","name":"Prachi Bhardwaj","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","caption":"Prachi Bhardwaj"},"description":"Senior Associate Editor","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":294785,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/16\/explained-supreme-court-verdict-on-constitutionality-of-section-3277-of-companies-act-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":213657,"position":0},"title":"Explained | Supreme Court’s verdict on constitutionality of Section 327(7) of Companies Act vis-\u00e0-vis preferential payment of dues to workers after liquidation","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court said that it cannot adopt a doctrinaire approach. Some sacrifices have to be always made for the greater good, and unless such sacrifices are prima facie apparent and ex facie harsh and unequitable as to classify as manifestly arbitrary, these would not be interfered with by the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"section 327(7) of companies act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-3277-of-companies-act.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-3277-of-companies-act.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-3277-of-companies-act.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-3277-of-companies-act.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":218449,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/21\/nclat-pf-pension-fund-and-gratuity-fund-does-not-come-within-the-meaning-of-assets-of-corporate-debtor-for-distribution-under-s-53-ibc\/","url_meta":{"origin":213657,"position":1},"title":"NCLAT | PF, Pension Fund and Gratuity Fund does not come within the meaning of Assets of Corporate Debtor for distribution under S. 53 IBC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice A.I.S Cheema, Member (Judicial) and Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical) decided an appeal including the following question for consideration: \u201cWhether the Provident Fund, Pension Fund and Gratuity Fund come within the meaning of assets of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258220,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/07\/does-s-3272-crpc-providing-for-in-camera-proceedings-apply-to-appeals\/","url_meta":{"origin":213657,"position":2},"title":"Does S. 327(2) CrPC providing for “in camera” proceedings apply to appeals? Bom HC decides while rejecting Tarun Tejpal’s application","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 7, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court at Goa: A Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and M.S. Jawalkar, JJ. rejected Tarun Tejpal's plea to conduct \"in camera\" proceedings in connection with the appeal filed against his acquittal in a rape case. The High Court held that: \"Section 327(2) CrPC would only be applicable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":280427,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":213657,"position":3},"title":"Order of stay\/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"December 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court ruled that the moratorium granted by the NCLAT, staying the institution of suits and proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, after the resolution process was initiated against it under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, was akin to an order of moratorium passed under\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":205151,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/15\/priority-to-be-given-to-interests-of-workmen-over-that-of-corporation-object-of-section-529-a-of-companies-act-1956-reiterated-bom-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":213657,"position":4},"title":"Priority to be given to interests of workmen over that of corporation; object of Section 529-A of Companies Act, 1956 reiterated: Bom HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 15, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench comprising of A.S. Oka and M.S. Sonak, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the Company Judge wherein he had directed the appellant- Bank to pay the dues of the\u00a0workmen that shall be recovered by it as directed\u00a0therein. During the liquidation proceedings of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239376,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/19\/not-just-the-petitioning-creditor-but-any-creditor-can-initiate-transfer-of-winding-up-proceedings-from-a-company-court-to-nclt-holds-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":213657,"position":5},"title":"Not just the petitioning creditor but ‘any’ creditor can initiate transfer of winding up proceedings from a Company Court to NCLT; holds SC","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 19, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Proceedings for winding up of a company are proceedings in rem to which the entire body of creditors is a party, hence, by a deeming fiction the petition by even a single creditor is treated as a joint petition.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213657","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=213657"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213657\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}