H.G. Ramesh, J:

1. This appeal under Section 75(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (the ‘Act’) is directed against the order dated 2.12.2003 passed by the Trial Court namely the Court of the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in the insolvency petition in I.C. No. 12/2001 filed by the appellants. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has dismissed the insolvency petition as against respondents 1,3 & 5 in view of Section 8 of the Act.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. The sole contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that Section 8 of the Act not come into play on the facts of the case and therefore, the Trial Court had erred in dismissing the insolvency petition against the respondents referred to above by relying on Section 8 of the Act.

3. To examine the contention urged, it is relevant to refer to Section 8 of the Act which reads as follows:

“8. Exemption of Corporation, etc., from insolvency proceedings.-

No insolvency petition shall be presented against any corporation or against any association or company registered under any enactment for the time being in force.

A plain reading of the above section would show that no insolvency petition shall be presented against any corporation or against, any association or company registered under any enactment for the time being in force. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants does not dispute that respondents 1,3 and 5 are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. If that be so, in view of Section 8 of the Act, no insolvency petition under the Act would lie against them. Accordingly, we find no error in the impugned order to warrant interference. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.