TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opers Ltd.’ and ‘Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.’ are the partners, therefore, even if one of the partners or more than one partner is the ‘Corporate Debtor’ as the amount is due from the partnership firm, the application under Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’ against one of the partners of such partnership firm will not be maintainable. In view of the aforesaid position of law, we hold that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the application under Section 9 was not maintainable against one of the members of the partnership firm (Respondent herein) and rightly rejected the said application. We find no merit in this appeal - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 698 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2018 - Justice S.J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 9 is not maintainable against the partnership firm. 4. The case of the Appellant is that by an agreement dated 17th June, 2005, they entered into partnership to be known as M/s. Gammon Neelkanth Realty Corporation between the Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and two other entities namely- M/s. Neelkanth Realtors Pvt. Ltd. , a company under the Companies Act, and Gammon Housing and Estates Developers Ltd. , a group company of the Appellant. 5. Subsequently, a contract was entered between the partnership firm and Gammon Neelkanth Realty Corporation and the Appellant herein for completing construction of seven residential buildings with facilities and amenities (being Phase-I of the Neelkanth Kingdom Project o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king in the site since January, 2013, though the Appellant did not carry out the work in satisfactory manner, the firm was compelled to take charge of the incomplete work. 8. It was also submitted on behalf of the Respondent that various complaints have been received from the customer for inferior work carried out by the Appellant. In view of the same, it was contended by learned counsel for the Respondent that the bills sent by the Appellant to the Respondent about the abandoned work, were not entertained as the Appellant did not attend to the quality disputes raised in the partnership firm against the Appellant. 9. As noticed, the Adjudicating Authority on going through the record held that the Respondent is a partnership firm by as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evelopers Ltd. and Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. are the partners, therefore, even if one of the partners or more than one partner is the Corporate Debtor as the amount is due from the partnership firm, the application under Section 9 of the I B Code against one of the partners of such partnership firm will not be maintainable. 12. In view of the aforesaid position of law, we hold that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the application under Section 9 was not maintainable against one of the members of the partnership firm (Respondent herein) and rightly rejected the said application. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Insolvency & Bankru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
