Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Sole Proprietorship Denied Insolvency Petition: Legal Entity Requirement Emphasized</h1> <h3>SYNERGY MARKETING INC Versus SIDDHARTH INTERCRAFTS P. LTD.</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by a sole proprietary concern under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the concern did not meet the ... Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process - defaults committed in relation to the invoices raised for supply of goods to the corporate debtor - section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- An operational creditor as defined under the provisions of the IBC, 2016 should be a person as defined under section 3(23) of the IBC, 2016 in order to maintain a petition under section 9 of the IBC, 2016. In the absence of a sole proprietary concern not being included in the definition a 'person', this Tribunal is of the considered view that this petition cannot be maintained. The IBC, 2016 is a code by itself and a petition should succeed or fail in terms of the provisions contained judgments pronounced by judicial authorities as to the competency of a sole proprietary concern to initiate legal proceedings in its own name, as has been done herein, may not be out of context. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Competency of a sole proprietary concern to file a petition under the IBC, 2016.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a sole proprietary concern, filed a petition seeking to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the corporate debtor for defaults related to invoices for the supply of goods. The operational creditor proposed an interim resolution professional and claimed an operational debt of Rs. 7,93,035 along with interest. The corporate debtor responded, disputing the claim and contending that certain invoices were not received, and settlement discussions had taken place. The corporate debtor also challenged the authorization of the petitioner to file the petition and raised objections regarding the affidavit filed in support of the petition.2. During the proceedings, the Tribunal questioned the competency of a sole proprietary concern to file a petition under the IBC. The definition of 'operational creditor' under the IBC includes a person to whom an operational debt is owed. However, the definition of 'person' under the IBC does not explicitly mention a sole proprietary concern. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of 'person' and 'operational creditor' under the IBC and concluded that for a petition to be maintained under section 9 of the IBC, the operational creditor should fall within the definition of a 'person' as outlined in the Code. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that a sole proprietorship concern may not be considered a legal entity and, therefore, cannot maintain legal proceedings in its own name.3. Based on the analysis of the definitions and legal precedents, the Tribunal determined that the petitioner, being a sole proprietary concern, did not meet the criteria of a 'person' as defined under the IBC. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the petition filed by the sole proprietary concern could not be maintained under the IBC. Referring to the judgment in Svapn Constructions v. IDPL Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., the Tribunal highlighted that legal proceedings initiated by a sole proprietorship firm, which is not recognized as a legal entity, are not maintainable. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground of the petitioner's lack of competency as a sole proprietary concern to file proceedings under the IBC.4. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the petition on the preliminary ground of the petitioner's status as a sole proprietary concern, which did not align with the definition of a 'person' under the IBC. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal framework and established precedents in determining the eligibility of entities to initiate legal proceedings, particularly in insolvency matters governed by the IBC.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found