Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + SC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 861 - SC - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiation of CIRP - Period of limitation - condonation of the delay in filing an application or appeal - NCLT dismissed the application - NCLAT allowed the application - HELD THAT:- The condition precedent for condonation of the delay in filing an application or appeal, is the existence of sufficient cause. Whether the explanation furnished for the delay would constitute “sufficient cause” or not would be dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the Appellant/applicant for the delay in taking steps. When an appeal is filed against an order rejecting an application on the ground of limitation, the onus is on the Appellant to make out sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application. The date of enforcement of the IBC and/or the date on which an application could have first been filed under the IBC are not relevant in computation of limitation. It would be absurd to hold that the CIRP could be initiated by filing an application under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC, within three years from the date on which an application under those provisions of the IBC could have first been made before the NCLT even though the right to sue may have accrued decades ago - the pendency of the proceedings in a parallel forum, invoked by the Respondent, is not sufficient cause for the delay in filing an application under Section 9 of the IBC. By the time the application was filed, the claim had become barred by limitation. It is now well settled that the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under the IBC as far as may be - Similarly, under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, an acknowledgment of present subsisting liability, made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed, has the effect of commencing of a fresh period of limitation, from the date on which the acknowledgment is signed. However, the acknowledgment must be made before the period of limitation expires. A claim may not be barred by limitation. It is the remedy for realisation of the claim, which gets barred by limitation. The impugned order of the NCLAT is unsustainable in law - appeal allowed.
|