✦ Himachal Pradesh High Court · 07 Oct 2025

State Bank of India v. MOLYCORP Minerals & Ors.

PRADESH SHIMLA CO. APPEAL No. 1 of 2025VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, ROMESH VERMA2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

this Court, present appeal is dismissed, being not maintainable,

Provisions considered

Judgment

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate, vice Ms. Rachna Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Additional Mr. Advocate General, for respondents No. 3 & 4/State. Mr. Vijay Arora, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Godawari, Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Ms. Aastha Kohli, Advocates, for respondent No.8. Ramankant Sharma, Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral) The present appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Company Application No. 23/2022 in Company Petition No. 13/2014, 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 titled as MOLYCORP Minerals LLC vs. M/s Indian Technomac Company Ltd., whereby an application preferred by the appellant-State Bank of India, invoking provisions of Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013, praying for transfer of proceedings pending before the High Court in Company Petition No.

13/2014 to National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bench at Chandigarh, for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016. 2 Learned Single Judge has dismissed the application by relying upon judgment passed by the Apex Court in Action Ispat and Power Private Limited vs. Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 641 with findings that the proceedings before the High Court in Company Petition No. 13/2014 have reached an irreversible situation as partial sales of assets have been effected and substantial amount has already been collected and, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant-State Bank of India. 3 The present appeal has been preferred by invoking provisions of Section 438 of the Companies Act, 1956. Admittedly, the Companies Act, 1956 has been replaced by the Companies Act, 2013 and, therefore, no appeal under provisions of law of the old Act is maintainable.

Operative part

3 4 Despite giving opportunity, the appellant has also failed to point out any other provisions under the Companies Act, 2013 for maintaining the present appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5 In absence of any provision, for maintaining the present appeal against the order before the Division Bench of this Court, present appeal is dismissed, being not maintainable, with liberty to the appellant to avail appropriate remedy, if any, available in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

7.10.2025 (pankaj) (Romesh Verma) Judge

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: this Court, present appeal is dismissed, being not maintainable,

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Companies Act, 2013 — ss. 434, 438.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 07 Oct 2025. The bench was VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, ROMESH VERMA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Himachal Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. PRADESH SHIMLA CO. APPEAL No. 1 of 2025). ← Search more judgments