JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J: Instant Company Petition under Section 433, 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1956') has been filed by the petitioner Small Industries Development Banks of India (hereinafter referred as 'SIDBI') seeking directions for winding up of the respondent M/s. N.M. Roof Designers Limited (hereinafter referred as 'respondent Company'). 2. It is submitted that SIDBI is a Corporation established under the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'SIDBI Act') and is a public financial institution within the meaning of Section 4A of the Act of 1956. The financial assistance by way of Subordinated Debt (SD) of Rs. 300 lac was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 19/09/2013 by the SIDBI to the respondent-Company on its application. The same was repayable in 48 installments of Rs.6.25 lac each. The amount as noted above, was fully disbursed. The respondent-Company paid interest upto 10th of May, 2015 but thereafter defaulted in making payment of interest and other dues which had fallen due w.e.f. 10/06/2015. 3. In the circumstances as above, recall notice dated 10/12/2015 demanding an aggregate amount of Rs.3,23,93,166.00 was served on the respondent-Company and as the said amount was not paid, notice under Section 434 of the Act of 1956 was served on the respondent-Company on 19/01/2016 claiming an aggregate amount of Rs.3,28,16,768/-. Vide reply dated 06/02/2016, the respondent-Company has admitted the said liability and also admitted its inability to pay the amount. In view thereof, the present petition for winding up of the respondent-Company has been filed by the SIDBI invoking provisions of Section 433(e) and 434(1) of the Act of 1956. 4. On 20/05/2016, the High Court issued notices to the respondent-Company and the same were served on 30/05/2016 as per report of the process server. On 05/05/2017, the respondent-Company put in appearance through its counsel and filed reply to the Company Petition on 10/08/2017. Rejoinder to the reply was filed by the petitioner-SIDBI on 31/08/2017. 5. 4. On 20/05/2016, the High Court issued notices to the respondent-Company and the same were served on 30/05/2016 as per report of the process server. On 05/05/2017, the respondent-Company put in appearance through its counsel and filed reply to the Company Petition on 10/08/2017. Rejoinder to the reply was filed by the petitioner-SIDBI on 31/08/2017. 5. In reply, preliminary objections have been raised by the respondent-Company stating therein that in view of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 notified vide notification dated 16/12/2016, the winding up petition was not maintainable as the notice issued to the respondent-Company was only to show cause and it does not contain the factum of admission of winding up petition and cannot be considered to be a notice under Rule 26 read with Rule 27 and Form 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. Another objection raised was with regard to the recovery proceedings initiated by the petitioner-SIDBI by filing OA No.310/2016 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and since the same converges on the same subject matter, it was prayed that the present proceedings be dismissed. 6. On merits, it has been urged on behalf of the respondent-Company that execution of affidavit and execution of deed of guarantee as stated would not provide any statutory basis or foundation to institute the present proceedings. It is stated that the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 have already been put to operation by the SIDBI and the same has an overriding effect. Once the petitioner-SIDBI has taken recourse of filing Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In rejoinder, the petitioner-SIDBI has submitted that the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 have come into effect w.e.f. 15/12/2016 and a notification has been issued on 28/02/2017 amending the said Rules of 2016 and Rule 5 of the said Rules only directs those petitions to be transferred from the High Court to the Tribunal where the petition has not been served as required under Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. It is the submission of the petitioner-SIDBI that as per Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, notices have to be served on the respondent as required under the Rules or as the Judge or the Registrar may direct. It is the submission of the petitioner-SIDBI that as per Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, notices have to be served on the respondent as required under the Rules or as the Judge or the Registrar may direct. It is further submitted that on 29/06/2017, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has clarified that the proceedings relating to winding up of Companies which have not been transferred from the High Court shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Act of 1956 and the Companies (Court) Rules of 1959. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice as per Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was only required to be served and requirement of service of winding up in terms of Rule 27 or Form-6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was not essential. Thus, the preliminary objection was wholly misconceived. The second preliminary objection has also been answered contending that the respondent-Company had been duly served from the date of promulgation of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 and therefore, the present Company Petition is not liable tobe transferred to the Tribunal. It is further stated that despite of service, reply was not filed by the respondent-Company upto 2017 and they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own fault. As regards the second preliminary objection, it is contended that the application for recovery under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was filed by the SIDBI after filing the present petition. The same is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1956 and Section 433(e) of the Act of 1956 not only recovers the debt but saves the public at large from being cheated or misled by such company. As the Company is not in a position to repay its debt, the Debts Recovery Tribunal does not have power of such a nature. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in Company Appeal No.2/2003 and Company Appeal No.34/2004 (the Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. RPG Transmission Ltd.). He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Transcore Vs. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in Company Appeal No.2/2003 and Company Appeal No.34/2004 (the Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. RPG Transmission Ltd.). He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Transcore Vs. Union of India and another, (2008) 1 SCC 125 where the Apex Court has permitted of parallel proceedings under the Act of 1956 as well as under the Act of 1956 and Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Thus, counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection of the respondent regarding non-maintainability of the present petition is wholly misconceived. On merits, it has been pointed out that after 10/05/2015, the respondent-Company clearly refused to repay the amount already advanced by the SIDBI. The preliminary objections, therefore, have been prayed to be rejected. 9. Having heard counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that the provisions like Sections 433 & 434 of the Act of 1956 are not provided under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or under any other Act. The order of winding up can only be passed by the Company Court and therefore, it cannot be said that the instant company petition is not maintainable. Further, the SIDBI had filed the instant company petition before this Court prior to taking up proceedings in DRT and on this Court too, the proceedings could be continued and the said objection is overruled. 10. As regards the objection relating to transferring the case to the DRT on coming into force of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 as noted above, since notices have already been served on the respondent prior to coming into force of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 i.e. on 30/05/2016, there is no occasion to transfer the company petition to the DRT. Moreover, as per the amendment in the Rules w.e.f. 29/06/2017, read with proviso to clause c of Rule 5, the present company petition is liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1956. It is also to be noted that compliance of Rule 27 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 is misconceived. Moreover, as per the amendment in the Rules w.e.f. 29/06/2017, read with proviso to clause c of Rule 5, the present company petition is liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1956. It is also to be noted that compliance of Rule 27 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 is misconceived. The service of notice has effectually been done in terms of Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and the respondent has already put in appearance. In view of above, the preliminary objections raised by the respondent are rejected. 11. Taking into consideration the admitted position of the debt having been duly demanded for repayment by SIDBI and the same being denied, this Court is satisfied that the respondent-Company is not in a position to repay its debts and is, therefore, liable to be wound up. 12. The Company Petition is accordingly admitted. In view of the facts of the case, proceedings be initiated for winding up the respondent-Company (M/s. N.M. Roof Designers Limited). The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as a Provisional Liquidator of the respondent-Company under Section 450 of the Act of 1956. The Official Liquidator shall immediately take steps to take possession of the immovable and movable assets of the respondent-Company. 13. The citation of admission of winding up petition being admitted be published by the petitioner in the news papers i.e. 'The Times of India (English) ' and 'Dainik Navjyoti (Hindi) ' in terms of Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) 14. The Citation be also published in Official Gazette. 15. All costs to the account of the petitioner-company. 16. A copy of this order be supplied to the Official Liquidator.