TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d partnership firm was not proved before the Trial Court; the suit being hit by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. An appeal was filed contending that the Trial Court ignored the legal effect of Exhibit-8, a Memorandum of Registration exhibited by the plaintiff, conclusively proving the registration of the firm. The First Appellate Court accepted the same, and after considering the merits of the matter decreed the suit, directing the defendant to pay the appellant a sum of Rs. 24,36,105/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount. The appellant herein, who was the defendant, is challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, primarily on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has to be allowed since it would further the cause of justice and enable the court to pronounce judgment especially since the document produced corroborates Exhibit P8. 6. We find no reason to uphold the order of the Trial Court rejecting the suit, finding the plaintiff to be not a partnership firm. 7. Now we come to the issue of limitation. The suit as we noticed is for recovery of money and the plaint is produced at Annexure P-27. The recovery sought is on the strength of the bills raised, with respect to the supplies made by the respondent to the appellant totalling Rs. 23,41,693/-. The bills upon which the claim was raised were shown with the details of date, invoice number, particulars, weight and amount, in the body of the plain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t decisions, a host of which were placed before us by both sides. 11. The respondent/plaintiff relies on Kalpraj Dharamshi and Anr. v. Kotak Investments Advisor Limited and Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 401, wherein on an application by the corporate debtor, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated and the Resolution Professional appointed, invited resolution plans. The appellant before this Court, submitted its Resolution Plan after the last date as specified by the RP, who invited all the applicants to file a Revised Resolution Plan which led to the appellant's plan being accepted. The respondent before this Court who had applied on time and had also furnished a Revised Resolution Plan, challenged the acceptance of the appellant's Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., (2009) 12 SCC 175 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 656], it has been observed, that when sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act per se is not applicable, the same would not mean, that the principles akin thereto would not be applicable." 12. It was also found that the petitioner had pleaded breach of principles of natural justice since, before the NCLT the matter was heard by a Member (Judicial) sitting single, while the order was passed by a Division Bench. The delayed appeal before the NCLAT was found to be possible of consideration since the appellant was bona fide prosecuting a remedy before the High Court, with due diligence. 13. Apposite would also be reference to Yeswant Deorao Deshmukh v. Walchand Ramchand Kothari 1950 SCC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we also have to notice that the Company Petition filed was not entertained since it was found that, though slightly delayed, the appellant issued a reply alleging that the substantial part of the claim made by the respondent, was apparently 'at the behest and with the connivance of the erstwhile associates of our company' (sic). Hence, there was a clear dispute raised and it was in the context of the appellant having undertaken to provide security for two bills i.e. TC/152 and TC/153, which were found in their accounts too, that the respondent was relegated to the civil remedy, further directing that deposit of Rs. 12,38,000/- covered by the bills bearing Nos. TC/152 and TC/153 be secured before the Civil Court within 3 weeks; to facilitate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... figure in the schedule of the claim, as revealed from the plaint, which stood already paid on 12.12.2007 before the notice of demand was issued. 16. It is also to be specifically noticed that the appellant had agreed to provide security only for two bills i.e., TC/152/05-06 and TC/153/05-06 dated 30.01.2006 before the Company Court. To surpass the limitation to file a suit for recovery of money as covered by the bills dated 30.01.2006, it should have been filed before 29.01.2009. Even if the date on which the Company Petition was filed, is taken for the purpose of determining limitation, reckoning the period spent in prosecuting the Company Petition under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the date of filing the Company Petition i.e., 10....