Order 30 of the Code is that a firm, though not a legal person, can be sued in the name of the firm. The requirement of all the partners suing the insolvency petition may not arise. However, that defect now does not stand subsisting in view of the fact that in the appeal the other partner has been impleaded. The revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal shall stand restored to the file of the learned Prl. District Judge, Nellore. The learned Judge shall hear and decide the appeal on merits and dispose of the same expeditiously. No costs.


THE HON’BLE SRI  JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR


CRP NO. 3482 OF 2008

Date of Judgment:  1.3.2011


Between:

Kankanwar Govinda Rao and another
…Petitioners
and
          Sri Manisha Financeris and another

..Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI  JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR


CRP NO. 3482 OF 2008

ORDER

          Respondents 2 and 3 in IP No. 12 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “IP”) had successfully established before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore that they are bona fide purchasers and the said purchase is not with a view to defeat the creditors of the first respondent in IP. The said IP was dismissed with a finding that the transaction of purchase by the respondents 2 and 3 in IP under two sale deeds dated 2.5.1998, registered on 6.5.1998, are bona fide sales by the first respondent in IP. Since the IP was dismissed, an appeal was filed before the learned Prl. District Judge, Nellore in AS NO. 160 of 2005. The lower appellate Court has set aside the order of Insolvency Court and remitted the IP for fresh consideration. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents 2 and 3 in IP i.e., the purchasers from first respondent in IP, have preferred this revision.
Heard Mr. P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for revision petitioners. Though the first respondent was served by substitute service as per the orders of this Court, nobody appears for him. The second respondent appears through a counsel, but he is the vendor of the revision  petitioners and he is sailing and supporting the revision petitioners.
The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the lower appellate Court has set aside the order of the Insolvency Court without there being any proper adjudication and he, in fact, questions the necessity of remanding the matter, when there are clear findings by the Insolvency Court. The said contention appears to be justified in view of the fact that the Insolvency Court under point No.2 had considered the very same question as to whether the petitioners herein are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and in paragraphs 15 and 16 of its order the said aspect has been discussed and a finding was reached that the sales are genuine for valuable consideration and the purchasers have, not only paid the consideration, but also made constructions on the petition ‘A’ schedule property. The Insolvency Court also found that there is no collusion between the revision petitioners and the first respondent in IP. However, the lower appellate Court, while considering the appeal, has referred that, “there is no discussion or determination of the issue as to whether the transaction was with an intent to defeat or delay the creditor or body of creditors.”  This appears to be totally in correct in view of the findings reached by the Insolvency Court referred to above. Apparently the lower appellate court has remitted the IP for fresh consideration without noticing the findings reached by the Insolvency Court as referred to above.  That apart, no ingredients of Order 41, Rules 23, 23-A or 25 of the Code have been attracted in the present case. The impugned order of remand is, therefore, wholly unjustified.
I am also, prima facie, not impressed with the other aspect raised in the matter that the insolvency petition is not maintainable under Order 30, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short “the Code”) and in my view what all the Order 30 of the Code is that a firm, though not a legal person, can be sued in the name of the firm. The requirement of all the partners suing the insolvency petition may not arise.  However, that defect now does not stand subsisting in view of the fact that in the appeal the other partner has been impleaded.
The revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal shall stand restored to the file of the learned Prl. District Judge, Nellore. The learned Judge shall hear and decide the appeal on merits and dispose of the same expeditiously. No costs.

_________________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
Dt. 1.3.2011

KR   


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515