Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (6) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1495 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - clarificatory amendment - retrospective or prospective effect - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record as well as by own assertion of the petitioner that the date of default is reflected as 04.07.2014 for all the 33 invoices. Material available on the record shows that the invoices against which the claim is made by the applicant company are dated 12.12.2013 to 13.05.14. The demand notice issued by the applicant company is dated 31.05.2018 and received by the respondent on 02.06.2018 which clearly indicates that the demand notice is sent after three years. That itself shows that the amount was due much prior to three years i.e. 13.05.2017 whereas the present application is filed on 31st July, 2018. Therefore, the claim made by the applicant/operational creditor is barred by limitation as it is being made after expiry of a period of three years. Implementation of Section 238A of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which has come into force on 06.06.2018 - HELD THAT:- In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in STATE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS V. RAMAKRISHNAN AND ANR. [2018 (8) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT], a clarificatory amendment has retrospective effect. That apart, it is also a matter on record that there was pre-existing dispute on account of cancellation of work order by the respondent. That, letter dated 26.06.2014, addressed to the operational creditor by the corporate debtor goes on to show that due to delay in completion of the supply, installation and commissioning of Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant, the corporate debtor cancelled some orders and against such action the operational creditor had made a representation-cum-demand for justice petition on 05.08.2014. The Adjudicating Authority is of the considered view that the petition is not maintainable - Petition dismissed.
|