TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue or be sued in its own name and therefore the present petition deserved to be dismissed - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor being a sole proprietorship concern should have filed the present Petition in the name of its sole proprietor and not in the name of proprietorship concerned. Hence the Petition is dismissed without costs. - CP NO. (IB) 1438 (ND) OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2018 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and stock at Pangadi, Bhatwa, Rewa (Madhya Pradesh). b. From 16.05.2016 to 30.06.2017 several invoices were raised totalling to ₹ 2,02,54,811/- upon the Corporate Debtor which were received by him without any objection and subsequently part payments were also made. At times, the Corporate Debtor even made advance payment to the Operational Creditor. c. On 30.6.2017 the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. But the same could not be served even after several attempts at the address available as the door was always found lock. 3. As evident from the reply filed on behalf of the Corporate Debtor: a. The primary contention of the Corporate Debtor was that the application filed by the Applicant was not maintainable in Law and under IBC, since the Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the alleged amount claimed was not clear and rather vague. d. That the Respondent Company pursuant to Work Order, paid an advance amount of ₹ 6,82536/- to the Applicant which was duly received for the period between 16.12.2015 to 15.2.2016 which got adjusted. It is pertinent to mention that the Respondent Company had paid a total amount of ₹ 1,63,98,032/- to the Applicant as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded by the Respondent in its reply that the Application filed by the Applicant was not maintainable in Law and under IBC, since the Proprietorship concern was not a legal entity and thus could not sue or be sued in its own name. Thus, in view of the above, the Operational Creditor being a sole proprietorship concern should have filed the present Petition in the name of its sole proprietor and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
