# In the matter of Fipola Retail (India) Private Limited Vs. M2N Interiors, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 89 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-09-01. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00111. This is an appeal against the Common Order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 1 Sept 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00111
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/fipola-retail-india-private-limited-vs-m2n-interiors-company-appeal-3b030d82

## Summary

### Background

This is an appeal against the Common Order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Court-I, Chennai) in IBA/54/2020 and IBA/59/2020. The Adjudicating Authority took the petition on record and directed the Corporate Debtor (Fipola Retail) to file its reply within three weeks from 01.02.2021. Fipola Retail preferred the appeal, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded its powers by reviewing its own order dated 25.02.2020.

## Facts

M/s. M2N Interiors, represented by its Sole Proprietor Mr. M. Murali, filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Chennai Bench). The Adjudicating Authority, via an order dated 25.02.2020, noted that the petitioner appeared to be a sole proprietorship concern and allowed an opportunity to amend the cause title. The Adjudicating Authority granted time for compliance until 17.09.2020. The Respondent filed a memo dated 05.10.2020 relying on the judgment of the Tribunal in 'Neeta Saha' and prayed to dispense with the compliance of amendment in the cause title. The Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 01.02.2021, directing the 'Appellant' to file its Reply to the Application. The key fact is whether a sole proprietorship

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application filed by M/s. M2N Interiors, a Proprietorship Firm, is maintainable under …

**Ratio:** Section 2 of the I&B Code 2016 applies to Partnership Firms and Proprietorship Firms.

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal relied upon its previous decision in Neeta Saha supra, which held that

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 2 and Section 3(23) of the IBC is crucial. The

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, where

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. Venu…; KanthiNar…
- **Appellants:** FIPOLA RETAIL…
- **Respondents:** M2N INTE…

## Timeline

- **2021-02-01 — Impugned…**: The Adjudicating Authority passed the…
- **2020-02-25 — Adjudicating Authority…**: The Adjudicating Authority passed an order noting that the petitioner appeared to be a…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(1) — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/fipola-retail-india-private-limited-vs-m2n-interiors-company-appeal-3b030d82