Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (4) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 583 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditor - assignment of the debt of the Corporate Debtor - legal or enforceable and recoverable claim to initiate any present proceeding or not, since cause of action accrued on 23.06.1998 - applicability of section 25(3) of the Contract Act - whether the said section is an exception to the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act? HELD THAT:- The date of default mentioned in the present Petition is 1998 (23/06/1998 as per the Corporate Debtor) and the Petition has been filed on 04/03/2019, after a period of more than 20 years - Since the Assignment Agreement dated 27/09/2013 is much beyond 3 years after the date of default, the contention that Section 25(3) of the Contract Act would be an exception to the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, would not have any relevance as far as triggering of date of default is concerned. This argument may be appropriate in a recovery proceeding. This proceeding not being a recovery proceeding, this argument cannot be accepted. The date of default mentioned in the Petition relates to pre-assignment era and the said default cannot be related to post assignment proceedings - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babulal Vardharji Gurjar’s case [2020 (8) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT] on the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act while referring to Para No. 21 of the decision in Jignesh Shah case [2019 (9) TMI 1121 - SUPREME COURT] categorically held that the same relates to the suits or other proceedings wherever it could apply and where the period of limitation gets extended because of acknowledgement of liability. This is not a suit for recovery and hence Section 18 of the Limitation Act will in no manner impact the limitation within which winding up proceedings is to be filed. The debt is grossly barred by limitation and cannot be held to be due for the purpose of the Petition under section 7 of the Code - petition dismissed.
|