Operational Creditor Claim Dismissed: Partner's Claim Not Covered by Insolvency Law

The Tribunal dismissed the company petition seeking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a Corporate Debtor under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal ruled that the claim by the Operational Creditor, a retired partner in a partnership firm, did not meet the definition of an "Operational Creditor" under the IBC. It held that the IBC does not protect a partner's claim against another partner or the firm, citing a NCLAT judgment. Therefore, the petition was deemed not maintainable, and the application under section 9 of the Code was rejected, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
Company petition under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction and Default
The Operational Creditor filed a petition seeking CIRP against the Corporate Debtor for failing to pay a sum of Rs. 75,00,000, with the default date as 18.04.2016, the date of dishonour of the cheque. The Corporate Debtor was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter.

Issue 2: Operational Creditor's Claim
The Operational Creditor, a partner in a partnership firm, sought payment as per a Retirement Deed executed on 31.12.2015, where the Firm agreed to pay the Operational Creditor Rs. 75,00,000. The cheque issued by the Firm was dishonoured, leading to the CIRP petition.

Issue 3: Corporate Debtor's Defense
The Corporate Debtor argued that the claim did not fulfill the definition of an "Operational Creditor" under the IBC. They contended that the claim should be against the partnership firm, not the company, and denied the existence of the debt and default.

Issue 4: Tribunal's Decision
The Tribunal considered the partnership dynamics and held that the IBC does not protect a partner's claim against another partner or the firm. Citing a NCLAT judgment, the Tribunal ruled that a retired partner has no right under the IBC to file a claim against the partner or the firm. As such, the petition was deemed not maintainable under the law, and the application under section 9 of the Code was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

This detailed analysis covers the jurisdictional aspect, the nature of the Operational Creditor's claim, the Corporate Debtor's defense, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and interpretations of the IBC.

---