Unregistered profit-sharing agreements cannot justify occupation of corporate debtor premises during CIRP; repossession by the Resolution Professional...
A suit by an unregistered partnership firm was maintainable because the claim arose from non-gratuitous supply of goods, not from enforcement of a contractual right, so the bar under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act did not apply. The court held that Section 70 of the Contract Act was satisfied: the goods were lawfully delivered, the defendant retained the benefit, and no agreement existed on essential terms such as price or credit, making the claim one for quantum meruit. The court also rejected objections to summary procedure and statement of truth, and accepted the invoices, e-way bills and GST records as proof of supply. The principal claim was decreed in full with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation.
A suit by an unregistered partnership firm was maintainable because the claim arose from non-gratuitous supply of goods, not from enforcement of a contractual right, so the bar under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act did not apply. The court held that Section 70 of the Contract Act was satisfied: the goods were lawfully delivered, the defendant retained the benefit, and no agreement existed on essential terms such as price or credit, making the claim one for quantum meruit. The court also rejected objections to summary procedure and statement of truth, and accepted the invoices, e-way bills and GST records as proof of supply. The principal claim was decreed in full with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
