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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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