Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + SCH Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2024 (4) TMI SCH This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 566 - SCH - Insolvency and BankruptcyAmendment of section 7 application - time limitation - date of default - HELD THAT - It is clear from the amendment that the case of the respondent is that though the first default arose on 30 April 2014, the petition under Section 7 is not barred by limitation in view of the subsequent events including the acknowledgements in the balance sheets and the recovery certificate. The NCLAT while affirming the order of the NCLT allowing the amendment has specifically kept the question of limitation open. In that sense, the plea of the appellant that the petition under Section 7 of the IBC is barred by limitation is not prejudiced - Bearing in mind the above circumstances, it is not necessary for the Court to entertain the appeal. All aspects on the question of limitation would be decided by the NCLT. This order merely affirms the correctness of the order allowing the amendment without expressing any opinion on the merits of the plea on limitation - Appeal disposed off.
Issues involved: Correction of date in earlier order, Amendment of petition under Section 7 of IBC 2016, Question of limitation in filing petition under Section 7, Disposal of Civil Appeal.
Correction of Date in Earlier Order: The Supreme Court corrected the date in an earlier order to reflect the correct lodgment date based on the records of the National Company Law Tribunal. Amendment of Petition under Section 7 of IBC 2016: The National Company Law Tribunal allowed the amendment of the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, which was affirmed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Question of Limitation in Filing Petition under Section 7: The respondent's case argued that despite the first default arising on 30 April 2014, the petition under Section 7 is not barred by limitation due to subsequent events, including acknowledgements in balance sheets and a recovery certificate. The NCLAT kept the question of limitation open while affirming the order allowing the amendment, ensuring the appellant's plea on limitation is not prejudiced. Disposal of Civil Appeal: The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to entertain the appeal, stating that all aspects regarding the question of limitation would be decided by the NCLT. The order affirmed the correctness of allowing the amendment without expressing an opinion on the merits of the limitation plea. The Civil Appeal was disposed of, and any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.
|