28

Can a partner of an unregistered partnership firm file a Suit for recovery of money, being hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932? – Sunkari Tirumala Rao and Ors. Vs. Penki Aruna Kumari – Supreme Court

/ 18 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in this case, the suit for recovery was filed by a set of partners together on one side, against another partner, for the purpose of enforcing a right accruing under the agreement. It is a clear as a noon day that the present suit had not been instituted by or on behalf of the firm against any third persons so as to fall under the ambit of Section 69(2). The petitioners have also not filed the instant suit for enforcing any statutory right conferred under any other law or a common law right so as to exempt the application of Section 69. Hence, the rigours of Section 69(1) would apply on such a suit and the partnership firm being unregistered would prevent the petitioners from filing a bare suit for recovery of money from the respondent.

Can a partner of an unregistered partnership firm file a Suit for recovery of money, being hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932? – Sunkari Tirumala Rao and Ors. Vs. Penki Aruna Kumari – Supreme Court Read Post »

Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Vs. Kunal Conchem Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 2 minutes of reading

In the proceedings settlement agreement dated 23.11.2023 was entered between the parties, relying on which settlement agreement proceedings were closed on 01.12.2023. Subsequently, Restoration Application was filed on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has not honoured the settlement between the parties. The application was opposed by the Corporate Debtor, however, the Adjudicating Authority after considering the submissions of the parties, allowed the application and revived Section 9 application.

Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Vs. Kunal Conchem Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

DRT has exceeded its jurisdiction in matching the thumb impressions of the Borrower on loan documents on the basis of attested by public notary without sending it to the forensic laboratory – Union Bank of India Vs. Smt. Amna Begam and Ors. – DRAT Allahabad

/ 5 minutes of reading

In this case, the borrower stated that she has never availed any loan nor signed any loan documents or executed any mortgage deed in favour of the Bank. The thumb impression and fingers’ impression of both the hands of the borrower were directed by the DRT to be given before the public notary for attestation and thereafter to be filed before it along with affidavit of the Notary and accordingly the same were filed before the DRT supported by the affidavit of the notary and the loan document was before the Presiding Officer itself and found that the same were not matching with each other.

Hon’ble DRAT Allahabad held that:

(i) The conclusion of the Tribunal below on the basis of attested thumb impression by notary is not sustainable because the DRT below has no expertization/instrument for matching the signatures and thumb impressions of the parties.
(ii) In the present case, neither the thumb impression of the borrower has been taken before the Tribunal below nor sent to any agency, which is established for the said purpose.
(iii) As such the Tribunal below has exceeded its jurisdiction in matching the thumb impressions of the borrower, which were not taken before it.

DRT has exceeded its jurisdiction in matching the thumb impressions of the Borrower on loan documents on the basis of attested by public notary without sending it to the forensic laboratory – Union Bank of India Vs. Smt. Amna Begam and Ors. – DRAT Allahabad Read Post »

Provision providing for penalty is not uncommon in Agreement of supply and the said clause has no bearing on the claim that it is Financial Debt | Security of refund of advance amount cannot change the nature of transaction into Financial Debt – Sainik Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ritesh Raghunath Mahajan, RP, Indian Sugar Manufacturing Company Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 27 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) The penalty is envisaged in event the second party refuses or fails to deliver the entire/ part quantity. Provision providing for penalty is not uncommon in Agreement of supply and the said clause has no bearing on the claim of the Appellant that it is financial debt.
(ii) Security of refund of advance amount cannot change the nature of transaction for supply of sugar into financial debt. Security for advance in supply of goods is also an accepted mode and manner for protecting the advance but the said clause has no bearing on nature of transaction.

Provision providing for penalty is not uncommon in Agreement of supply and the said clause has no bearing on the claim that it is Financial Debt | Security of refund of advance amount cannot change the nature of transaction into Financial Debt – Sainik Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ritesh Raghunath Mahajan, RP, Indian Sugar Manufacturing Company Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Liability to pay Pre-CIRP dues cannot be fastened on Successful Bidder simply because the assets was purchased in auction on “as is where is” and “as is what is basis” – Square Port Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Vijaykumar Iyer and Others – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:
(i) The dispute is arising from non-payment of Pre-CIRP dues, this arises from the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, hence vests the power in this Tribunal to decide on this issue and provide protection to the successful buyer from he obstruction caused due to non-payment of Pre-CIRP dues.
(ii) It is trite law that the auction purchaser gets the assets on “as is where is” and “as is what is” basis and such assets have to be free from all obligations or encumbrances, unless otherwise made part of the bidding document. Accordingly, the liability to pay Pre-CIRP dues can not be fastened on the Applicant simply because the Dabhol Shipyard was purchased in auction on “as is where is” and “as is what is basis”.

Liability to pay Pre-CIRP dues cannot be fastened on Successful Bidder simply because the assets was purchased in auction on “as is where is” and “as is what is basis” – Square Port Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Vijaykumar Iyer and Others – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top