Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (4) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1158 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to maker repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Corporate Debtor has raised objection that the applicant being an unregistered partnership firm is not entitled to file present application in terms of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - HELD THAT:- From the bare perusal of the Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act, it is apparent that the effect of non-registration of the firm would adversely effect to the suit and not to the applications alike that of under Section 9 of the Code. The application under Section 9 of the Code does not come under the purview of the 'suits'. The proceedings before the NCLT under Section 9 are concerned, that are not in the nature of the suit or miscellaneous proceeding rather that is application moved by the party against the defaulting Corporate debtor for initiation of CIR proceedings. It is settled principle of law that NCLT is not entitled to go into the depth of the matter and law does not permit Tribunal to decide the matter on contentious issues, which are to be decided by Civil Courts. A reference can also be made to B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parag Gupta & Associates [2018 (10) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it is held that CIR proceedings does not constitute a 'suit'. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India further in the matter of Sagar Sharma Vs. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd., [2019 (10) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT] endorsed that the application under the IBC are petitions. Thus, the proceedings under IBC Code are not of the nature of 'suits' and are summary in nature, therefore, the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable with respect to the applications filed under the Code. Thus, it is established that applicant had raised the invoices from 17th May 2018 to 15th December 2018 and there was vague dispute regarding the quality of one consignment only, which was also stand resolved, hence, a sum of ₹ 22,066,872/- were still outstanding against the Corporate Debtor pertains to the above said invoices. In view of the facts and circumstances, the present petition stands admitted. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
|