Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (8) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 997 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHANDIGARH BENCHMaintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - whether the present application is filed within limitation? - HELD THAT:- It can be seen from the records that the date of default mentioned in Form 1 Part IV is 15.09.2015 and this petition is re-filed vide Diary No. 01099 dated 30.09.2021. Pursuant to this query, it is explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner there is also subsequent default, when the cheque was bounced. But this fact is not clearly mentioned in Part IV - it may be noted that although in above compliance affidavit "the last cheque provided by the respondent to the applicant got bounced/dishonoured on 18.09.2017 for an amount of Rs. 69892" has been mentioned but there is no cogent evidence provided which shows bouncing of any cheque, instead bouncing of ECS Instrument as stated in the said affidavit. As per the mentioned date of default i.e. 15.09.2015, the limitation period ends up in the month of September, 2018 but the present petition is re-filed on 30.09.2021 vide Diary No. 01099. Also the date of default as per the record available with information utility in respect of debt is 30.06.2016 and the date of last repayment is 19.08.2015 for an amount of Rs. 69,892.00/-. Even if the last date of default is taken as 30.06.2016, then also it is badly time barred. The above-said arbitration award for recovery of Rs. 23,66,868/- has been made on 25.02.2016 which again emphasise that even after passing the award no payment was made thus, the instant petition is beyond the limitation period. The present petition is time barred. Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 is imperative and casts a duty upon the Court to dismiss an application barred by time although limitation has not been set up as a defence - As held in Ashis Kumar Hazra V. Rubi Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [1997 (5) TMI 452 - SUPREME COURT] that under Section 3, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that unless proper explanation is given, the valuable right cannot be defeated. It is also held in Lachhman Singh V. Hazara Singh [2008 (5) TMI 747 - SUPREME COURT] that limitation is a question of jurisdiction Section 3 puts embargo on the court to entertain a suit if it is found to be barred by limitation. The present petition is not filed within the prescribed period of Limitation, whereas, every petition/application should be filed within the prescribed period of three years and if not filed, it is liable to be dismissed in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act - Petition dismissed.
|