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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more