Other-Unregistered Partnership

In the absence of the compliance of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, an unregistered Partnership Firm cannot file insolvency petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Amogh Industrial Products Vs. Mirchi Developers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that in lieu of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, it is imperative on the Petitioner to show that the Petitioner is a registered firm and that the Authorised Signatory is shown as partner in the Register of Firms. In the absence of the compliance of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the Petition filed is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

In the absence of the compliance of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, an unregistered Partnership Firm cannot file insolvency petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Amogh Industrial Products Vs. Mirchi Developers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Is an unregistered partnership firm barred from filing insolvency application under Section 9, IBC, 2016? – M/s. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills Unit-1 Vs. M/s. Revital Reality Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI

The Adjudicating Authority held that with respect to the same, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of Rourkela Steel Syndicate vs. Metistech Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 102 NCLAT. Therefore, it is clear that the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 would not apply to Applications filed under IBC, 2016. It is also held that per Section 10A of the IBC, 2016 and the MCA Notifications dated 24.09.2020 and 22.12.2020, no application for CIRP may be filed for defaults occurring between 25.03.2020 to 24.03.2021.

Is an unregistered partnership firm barred from filing insolvency application under Section 9, IBC, 2016? – M/s. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills Unit-1 Vs. M/s. Revital Reality Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI Read Post »

Since an application under Section 9 of IBC cannot be treated as suit, bar of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not attracted – Rourkela Steel Syndicate Vs. Metistech Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that An application under Section 9 of IBC cannot be said to be a suit and analogy of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd & Anr [2019] ibclaw.in 16 SC, is fully applicable to the application filed under Section 9 IBC also. Further, also it is well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates [2018] ibclaw.in 32 SC 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.

Since an application under Section 9 of IBC cannot be treated as suit, bar of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not attracted – Rourkela Steel Syndicate Vs. Metistech Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The bar in terms of section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, would not apply to applications filed under the IBC – M/S Shree Dev Chemicals Corporation Vs. Gammon India Limited – NCLT Mumbai Bench

In terms of section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be initiated in any court by or on behalf of the firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the Firm.  NCLT held that it is clear from the above that the provision would apply only to a ‘suit’ and not to proceedings. Applications filed under the IBC are not ‘suits’ but only proceedings, and therefore, we hold that the bar in terms of section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, would not apply to applications filed under the IBC.

The bar in terms of section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, would not apply to applications filed under the IBC – M/S Shree Dev Chemicals Corporation Vs. Gammon India Limited – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top