Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (11) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1572 - 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 - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- This claim pertains to transactions that is stated to have taken place between September 15, 2014 and September 22, 2014. The date of default is September 15, 2014. It is not clear as to how, when the supplies have taken place up to September 22, 2014, the date of default can be September 15, 2014. However, this is of no material significance because even if we assume the date of default to be September 23, 2014, i. e., the day after the last default was raised on September 22, 2014 the question of limitation has to be considered - It is not the case of the operational creditor that any payment has been received after September 22, 2014, in which case the applicability of section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, may have a bearing. That being the case, since the date of default even according to the operational creditor is September 22, 2014, and applying the principles laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in B. K. Educational Services P. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates [2018 (10) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT] and Sagar Sharma v. Phoenix ARC P. Ltd. [2019 (10) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT] judgments, the limitation for filing the proceedings ended on September 21, 2017, while the present petition has been filed on May 15, 2018. There is also no proof of any acknowledgment of liability on the part of the corporate debtor within the limitation period that may have the effect of extending the period of limitation within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Furthermore, even on the merits, there is no evidence placed on record that the invoices were received by the corporate debtor. Neither have delivery challans evidencing service on goods on the corporate debtor been placed on record. Application dismissed.
|