Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 1188 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking condonation of delay of 230 days in preferring Company Petition - availability of Section of the Limitation Act, 1963 to an Application filed under Section 7 or Section 9 by a Creditor - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in B.K. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PARAG GUPTA AND ASSOCIATES [2018 (10) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT] has stated that Limitation Act is applicable since the inception of the Code (IBC, 2016) while posing itself with a query as to whether the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to Applications that are made under Section 7 and or Section 9 of the Code (IBC, 2016) on and from its commencement on 01.12.2016 to 06.06.2018 (date of amendment of insertion of Section 238-A coming into effect), Referring to the Report of the Insolvency Law Committee of March, 2018 in this regard and after extracting paragraph 28.1 to 28.3 of the said Report and highlighting that the Code (IBC, 2016) could not have been to give a new lease of life to debts which are time barred and has thereby gone to give a finding that the Limitation Act is applicable from the inception of the Code. The reasons hence given in the Application that since the Limitation Act, 1963 came to be applied only from 06.06.2018 and in the circumstances in effect there has been a laxity on the part of the Applicant to approach this Tribunal also does not hold much water in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that bringing into effect the amendment on and from 06.06.2018 by insertion of Section 238-A of IBC, 2016 is more by way of only a clarification about the applicability of the 'Limitation Act' and cannot be claimed to be made applicable only from the date when the 'Amendment Act' came into force on 06.06.2018. The pleadings have failed to clearly bring out as to how the number of day's delay as stated in the Application of 230 days has been computed giving out clearly the start and end date. Even when the learned Counsel for the Respondent specifically raised the issue, Learned Counsel for the Applicant was not in a position to answer the issue - thus, no sufficient cause has been demonstrated to involve Section '5' of the Limitation Act, 1963, even assuming it can be applied at all. The Application seeking for condonation of delay, in filing a Petition / Application under Section '9' of IBC, 2016 invoking Section '5' of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands dismissed.
|