IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Co. Appeal No. 1/2025 Decided on: 7.10.2025 State Bank of India …..Appellant Versus MOLYCORP Minerals & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: 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. Mr. Ramankant Sharma, Additional 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. 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 Admittedly, the Companies Act, 1956 has been replaced by the Companies Act, 2013 and, therefore, no appeal under provisions of law of the old Act is maintainable. 3 4 Despite giving opportunity, the appellant has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 (Romesh Verma) 7.10.2025 Judge (pankaj)