TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Operational Creditor Claim Dismissed: Partner's Claim Not Covered by Insolvency Law</h1> <h3>Anil Vora HUF Versus Kavya Build-Con Private Limited</h3> Anil Vora HUF Versus Kavya Build-Con Private Limited - TMI 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 DefaultThe 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 ClaimThe 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 DefenseThe 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 DecisionThe 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.
TaxTMI 