ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Khyati Chug for learned advocate Mr. Parth Bhatt for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Vivek N. Mapara for the respondents. 2. Company petition is filed for winding up of the respondent-Company as it has failed to pay the debt of the petitioner under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. This Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Chhaya) issued notice on 8th August, 2016. Thereafter matter was adjourned from time to time at the request of the learned advocates for the respective parties. This Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.R. Udhwani, As His Lordship was then) vide order dated 29th March, 2019 admitted the petition and appointed provisional liquidator to take over the assets and liabilities of the respondent-company and also directed publication of appointment of provisional liquidator in two daily newspaper and also to bring the said fact to the notice of secured as well as unsecured creditors. 4. Company Application No. 38/2019 came to be filed seeking extension of time for publication of advertisement as per order dated 29th March, 2010. The Court accordingly vide order dated 8th May, 2019 allowed such application. 5. The Official Liquidator filed complaint being Criminal Case No.2 of 2020 under section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 inter-alia praying to take cognizance of the default committed by accused no.1 (respondent no.2) and accused no.2 (respondent no.3) of the said complaint and to issue process against them. Further, prayers were also made to direct the accused no.1 and accused no.2 to submit the Statement of Affairs as on 29th March, 2019 with full details and to impose fine upon them. Further direction was also sought against accused nos. 1 and 2 to attend the office of the Official Liquidator for recording their statement under Rule 130 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959 and to handover the possession of books of accounts, records and other relevant documents of the company. This Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora) issued notice on 4th December, 2020 and the said matter is pending adjudication. 6. It appears that thereafter, the matter has again been adjourned from time to time at the request of the parties and matter has never been heard on merits and no further progress has been made in the matter. 7. Justice Ilesh J. Vora) issued notice on 4th December, 2020 and the said matter is pending adjudication. 6. It appears that thereafter, the matter has again been adjourned from time to time at the request of the parties and matter has never been heard on merits and no further progress has been made in the matter. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that sufficient efforts are made to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent-Company but the same have failed. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Company submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Action Ispat and Power Pvt Ltd. vs. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd. rendered in of Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2020 on 15.12.2020, the proceedings of the company petition are required to be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal [‘NCLT’ for short]. 9. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties it appears that after the order of admission, advertisement of the petition and appointment of provisional liquidator, no further orders are passed by the Court with regard to order of winding up of the company. In such circumstances and in view of the following observations of the Apex Court in case of Action Ispat and Power Pvt Ltd. vs. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd.(supra), this petition is required to be transferred to the NCLT, Ahmedabad : “22. Given the aforesaid scheme of winding up under Chapter XX of the Companies Act, 2013, it is clear that several stages are contemplated, with the Tribunal retaining the power to control the proceedings in a winding up petition even after it is admitted. Thus, in a winding up proceeding where the petition has not been served in terms of Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 at a preadmission stage, given the beneficial result of the application of the Code, such winding up proceeding is compulsorily transferable to the NCLT to be resolved under the Code. Even post issue of notice and pre admission, the same result would ensue. Even post issue of notice and pre admission, the same result would ensue. However, post admission of a winding up petition and after the assets of the company sought to be wound up become in custodia legis and are taken over by the Company Liquidator, section 290 of the Companies Act, 2013 would indicate that the Company Liquidator may carry on the business of the company, so far as may be necessary, for the beneficial winding up of the company, and may even sell the company as a going concern. So long as no actual sales of the immovable or movable properties have taken place, nothing irreversible is done which would warrant a Company Court staying its hands on a transfer application made to it by a creditor or any party to the proceedings. It is only where the winding up proceedings have reached a stage where it would be irreversible, making it impossible to set the clock back that the Company Court must proceed with the winding up, instead of transferring the proceedings to the NCLT to now be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Whether this stage is reached would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” 10. In view of the above Company Petition No. 342/2016 along with Criminal Case No.2 of 2020 are accordingly transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. Registry to forward the papers to the Tribunal within a period of Eight weeks from today along with order. Tribunal to do the needful in accordance with law to proceed with the matter from the stage at which it is transferred.