Skip to main content

Unregistered Partnership Firm Can File Application Under Insolvency Code

Cause Title : Rourkela Steel Syndicate vs Metistech Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 924 of 2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

Date of Judgment/Order : 06.02.2023

Corum : [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson, [Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr.
  2. B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates, (2019) 11 SCC 633

Background

Section 69(2) in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 states that only a registered firm can file a suit against any third person to enforce a right. 

The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Cuttack) rejecting the application filed under Section 9 of IBC on the ground that the application is barred by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. The Adjudicating Authority took the view that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act bars a suit by an unregistered partnership, hence the above Application which was filed by the Appellant against the third party for enforcing a right arising out of contract is barred.

Judgment

The NCLAT observed that it has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Hargovindbhai Dave’s case that an application under Section 9 of IBC cannot be said to be a suit. Further, also it is well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.K. Educational (supra) that provision of Section 5 Limitation Act are also fully applicable in Section 7 & 9 IBC applications. Section 5 Limitation Act is not applicable in a suit which is also a clear indication that Application under Section 7 & 9 are not a suit.

Holding that the Adjudicating Authority had erred in rejecting the application held that in view of the above, the bar of Section 69(2) is not attracted in the present case since the application under Section 9 cannot be treated as suit.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more