|
Advanced Search Options
Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 147 Records
-
2019 (12) TMI 1459 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditor - NBFC - financial creditor proves the financial debt against the corporate debtor on the basis of transaction as disclosed or not - Commitment of default or not - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the financial creditor is a non-banking financial company. Hence, the transaction in dispute cannot be a transaction of simple corporate deposit in between two companies. Here in this case, the financial creditor alleges to have given the loan to the corporate debtor. Obviously, when any NBFC gives loan to an individual or for that matter any corporate person, it may require to follow certain rules of business.
In this case, the financial creditor did not disclose in its application, more particular in Part V of the application, by giving details as to when the corporate debtor made application for loan, when it was granted. The financial creditor did not produce on record the document to show that loan was really granted as per the request of the corporate debtor. In Form V of the application, he did not state all relevant facts - the financial creditor did not disclose the document to establish its claim of loan disbursement. It has relied on only one document that is xerox copy of the statement of account issued by HDFC Bank (annexure 6) to show that amount of ₹ 25 lakhs was transferred to the account of corporate debtor by way of RTGS.
The corporate debtor has come out with the clear defence that they have paid the entire amount and nothing is due and payable. In such situation, it was expected from the financial creditor to explain as to what happened to earlier cheque of the corporate debtor - It is now well-settled that this authority cannot act as a recovery Tribunal. The financial creditor did not produce required documents to show that they received the application from the corporate debtor requesting the loan. The documents showing that the so-called application was duly processed by them and later on it was granted. The financial creditor did not produce the document showing that thereafter they issued in favour of the corporate debtor the letter informing that the loan proposal is granted as requested, etc.
The corporate debtor come out with clear defence that financial creditor owes nothing against them. They filed interpleader suit disclosing the nature of alleged transaction. It cannot be said that their contention in the suit may be correct but competent civil court having felt that there exists prima facie case in favour of the corporate debtor have issued and an interim prohibitory order against financial creditor and others stating they cannot recover the amount claimed herein - this Authority is not a forum for a recovery of amount.
The corporate debtor has explained the nature of transaction and financial creditor did not produce adequate evidence to prove that it owns financial debt against the corporate debtor. In this summary enquiry, the correctness of assertion of financial creditor and defence of the financial creditor cannot be entered into - the evidence as produced by the financial creditor is not enough and cannot be safely relied on.
The corporate debtor is a solvent company. Generally, solvent company will not take a risk to go into CIRP for non-payment of ₹ 25 lakhs. From evidence on record, it is held that the financial creditor may not owe financial debt as claimed by them in their application. Hence, there is no question of any default by the corporate debtor - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1458 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - corporate debtor committed default in payment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - service of notice - whether there is any distinction drawn between other normal units and banked units under the power purchase agreement? - HELD THAT:- The electricity generated by the petitioner through its solar power plant could be injected into the electricity grid maintained by the DISCOM to be consumed by various consumers. Thereafter, the DISCOM acknowledges the receipt of particular of renewable energy and issues generation credit note (GCN). Then on the basis of energy settlement/report, the petitioner raises the invoice as per the units consumed by the end consumer - the energy settlement/report talks about two different units, i. e., other units and bank units. Whereas the corporate debtor claims that the energy generated by the petitioner is directed injected to the DISCOM and is banked and agreed and thus, there is no distinction between the normal units and the banked units.
There is no provision or discussion regarding the normal units and the banked units in the entire solar power purchase agreement and addendums executed between the parties. Evidently, there has been an agreement of sale of electricity and purchase of electricity by and between the petitioner and the corporate debtor - there is a clear liability of payment of unpaid invoices in terms of the solar power purchase agreement and addendums between the parties, wherein the corporate debtor has agreed to buy the energies generated and supplied to the DISCOMs under the definitive arrangements and with the obligation to pay the said amounts within the stipulated agreed time. The liability of the corporate debtor cannot be absolved under the premise that they are liable to pay only at 3.70 per unit basing on the distinction drawn between the banked units and the other/normal units.
This Adjudicating Authority, on perusal of the documents filed by the creditor, is of the view that the corporate debtor defaulted in paying the outstanding unpaid invoices raised by the petitioners in terms of the power purchase agreement and addendums thereto and also placed the name of the insolvency resolution professional to act as interim resolution professional and there being no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution professional, therefore the application under section 9 is taken as complete - petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1454 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - financial debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The application made by the financial creditor is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the corporate debtor is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is in excess of minimum amount of one lakh rupees stipulated under section 4(1) of the IBC. Therefore, the default stands established and there is no reason to deny the admission of the petition. In view of this, this Adjudicating Authority admits this petition and orders initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1450 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - Operational creditor or not - existence of debt ad dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact that the operational creditor and the corporate debtor entered into an agreement of distributorship dated 3-4-2017. The petitioner is a distributor of the goods supplied by the corporate debtor. The petitioner is selling the product of the corporate debtor. Thus, the petitioner is rendering service to the corporate debtor. It cannot be said that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of 'the operational creditor'. The petitioner is a distributor for the goods supplied by the corporate debtor. It is nothing but a kind of service being provided to the corporate debtor in respect of the goods produced by the corporate debtor and the goods are being sold through the operational creditor - the contention of the learned counsel for the corporate debtor that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of 'the operational creditor' and the amount also does not fall under the definition of 'operational debt', cannot be agreed upon.
Presence of dispute in the form of a civil suit filed against the corporate debtor by the operational creditor or not - HELD THAT:- Section 5(6) of the I&B Code referred to above. It is true that the dispute includes pendency of suit. It is the specific case of the operational creditor that it has filed the civil suit against the corporate debtor in respect of the debt referred to in the petition. Therefore, there is a pre-existing dispute and as such the petition cannot be admitted under section 9 of the I&B Code - Similarly, the learned counsel for the corporate debtor also relied on decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of Ashoke Ghosh [2020 (1) TMI 473 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI], and contended that when a civil suit is pending it amounts to prior dispute and hence the petition cannot be admitted.
The present petition cannot be admitted for the reason that already a civil suit was filed by the operational creditor against the corporate debtor, which amounts to prior dispute. The petition cannot be admitted on this ground - Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1445 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Approval of Resolution Plan - alleged that the 'resolution plan' which do not confirm requirements of section 30(2) and discriminates amongst the class of creditors has been approved - HELD THAT:- In 'Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd.' [2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that with regard to distribution method, the National Company Law Tribunal or National Company Law Appellate Tribunal cannot go beyond the commercial wisdom of the 'Committee of Creditors'. This Appellate Tribunal has also held that the commercial wisdom is a subject matter of the 'Financial Creditor (Commercial Creditors), which cannot be decided by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) or the Appellate Tribunal (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal).
In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Appellant is a First Charge holder of the assets of the 'Corporate Debtor'. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd.' (supra), the equitable treatment is to be accorded to each creditor depending upon the class to which it belongs i.e. 'secured' or 'unsecured', 'financial creditor' or 'operational creditor' - the Appellant has failed to show that any of the provisions of section 30(2) has been violated or there is any material irregularity in the corporate insolvency resolution process period. The question of giving benefit to First Charge holder does not arise both on the question of facts and law. The Appellant cannot derive any benefit from Sections 40 or 48 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882.
As the Appellant has failed to make out any ground under sub-section (3) of section 61 of the I&B Code, no relief can be granted - appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1443 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - pre-existing dispute or not - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the Demand notice and e-mail correspondence between the parties it is seen that there does not exist any pre-existing dispute regarding quality or standard of equipment supplied between the parties. Further there exists no arbitration or any other proceedings between the parties. Therefore this Adjudicating Authority is of the view that there is no pre-existing dispute between the parties.
With regard to the dispute now raised as to the quantum of debt amount, this Adjudicating Authority is of the view that dispute as to the quantum of amount of debt does not alter the situation so long as there is any default on the part of the Corporate Debtor and the same is for more than ₹ 100,000/-. It is seen from reply filed by Corporate Debtor that according to Corporate Debtor itself total value of contract was of ₹ 7.2 Crores out of which a sum of ₹ 4.25 Crores only has been paid.
Further letter dated 29-12-2016, clearly establishes admission of debt on part of the Corporate Debtor. That there is a default on the part of the Corporate Debtor is also clear from a perusal of the correspondence between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor including the MoU dated 24-10-2013 and the two letters of the Corporate Debtor dated 9-8-2016 & 29-12-2016. Since the letters dated 9-8-2016 and 29-12-2016 establish a clear acknowledgement of debt on the part of the Corporate Debtor, Section 18 of the Limitation Act will be applicable in this case and the instant application is held to have been filed within limitation. Therefore this Adjudicating Authority is inclined to admit the instant petition.
The instant petition is hereby admitted and this Adjudicating Authority order commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process which shall ordinarily get completed within the timelines provided u/s. 12 of the IBC, 2016, reckoning from the day this order is passed - application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1442 - SC ORDER
Invitation of fresh offers by the Resolution Professional within 21 days - It is submitted that on the basis of wrong information furnished to the learned counsel, it was stated before us that five offers were received within time and two offers were received thereafter - HELD THAT:- As a matter of fact, only one offer was received within time. There were three Resolution Plans submitted by the resolution applicants and two Financial Offers received thereafter. The facts are placed on record.
In the circumstances, the order dated 13-11-2019 insofar as "the decision be taken by the CoC as to the offers which were received within the time limit within three weeks from today and be placed before this Court", is recalled - The above portion is recalled as only one offer was received within time - It is directed that fresh offers be invited within 30 days from today after due advertisement in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the purpose.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1437 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtors did not make the payment against the default amount. None appeared on behalf of the Corporate Debtor to oppose the prayer made by the petitioner, hence they were proceeded ex parte. The present petition being filed in July, 2019 is within the limitation, being within three years from the date of the cause of action. Considering the circumstances this Tribunal is inclined to admit this petition and initiate CIRP of the Respondent. Accordingly, this petition is admitted.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1415 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor has not denied having availed credit facilities, creation of mortgage, and classification of the loan account as "Non Performing Asset" and the non-payment of the loan amount. The Corporate Debtor and its Guarantors are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount against the loans availed by the Corporate Debtor - Since the Financial Creditor has proved existence of debt and default and there being no denial from the Corporate Debtor with respect to the outstanding amount of ' 2,83,10,52,539.32 as on 14.01.2019, this application is admitted.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1414 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to liquidate its financial debt - existence of dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The arguments raised by the Corporate Debtor in his pleadings that the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor duly entered into the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 01.08.2017 and Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.08.2017 for the purchase of the flats developed by the Corporate Debtor a consideration of ₹ 17,08,750 as stipulated in the Flexi Payment Plan as per Clause 4 of the Buyer Builders Agreement but contra, the Financial Creditor tendered mere ₹ 16,00,000 in totality and Ipso Facto the Corporate Debtor refused to deliver the possession of the flats for a want of total amount due ₹ 17,08,750. However, the perusal of records show it was an agreed term between the Financial Creditors and the Corporate Debtor vide the Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.08.2017 that the concerned units of the project shall be allotted to the Financial Creditor on payment of ₹ 16,00,000 and it is in opinion of this Hon'ble Tribunal that no dispute was raised by the Corporate Debtor with respect to the amount of ₹ 17,08,750/- to the Financial Creditor hence, the contention of the Corporate Debtor to not handover the possession of the said units of the project holds no legal ground.
Petition admitted.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1412 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor is referring to the Purchase order of the year 2016. The Operational Creditor is contending that all the works were completed in respect of purchase orders which are two in number of the year 2016. On the other hand, the Corporate Debtor is trying to contend that there is a pre-existing dispute by referring to purchase orders of the year 2016 which is not at all the subject matter of the present petition. Except alleging some dispute with regard to the purchase orders of 2016, the Corporate Debtor did not raise any objection with regard to the purchase orders relied upon by the Operational Creditor in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a prior dispute.
Admittedly, the Corporate Debtor has not raised any dispute with regard to placing purchase order with Operational Creditor and further there is no dispute with regard to raising invoices by the Operational Creditor. Thus, Operational Creditor is able to establish default of operational debt. The Operational Creditor suggested the name of Interim Resolution Professional who has given his consent in Form-2. The Application is in order and deserves to be admitted.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1411 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is no such dispute as pre-existing, the dispute which was being claimed to be pre-existing by the corporate debtor did not survive - The applicant has attached the copy of Bank statements issued by Syndicate Bank in compliance with the requirement of Section 9(3)(c) of the IBC 2016.
The present application is complete and the Operational Creditor is entitled to claim its dues, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt beyond doubt, and fulfillment of requirements under section 9(5) of the Code. Hence, the present application is admitted.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1410 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - allegation that the Petitioner has not completed the work within the given time and there was a delay of 107 days in completing the work - HELD THAT:- Clause 4 of the work order specifically provides for a time period of 67 days for completing the works which includes all holidays and weekly holidays and other non-working days. Therefore, excluding the delay due to Petitioner's failure on account of local conditions is untenable and was disregarded by the Corporate Debtor. The work order was issued for an aggregate contract value of ₹ 1,14,04,128/- and that the Corporate Debtor had already paid an amount of ₹ 1,04,52,250/-. The ledger statement thus certified the amount paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner.
The Corporate Debtor has enclosed the following emails, which were all before the issue of demand notice dated 04.12.2018 to show that there is a pre-existing dispute - All the above emails were exchanged between the parties before the issuance of demand notice and upon perusal of the same it can be said that admittedly there is a delay in execution of the project and hence there is a pre-existing dispute covered under section 5(6) of the Code.
It is beneficial to refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application.
When the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is applied to the facts of the present case it is established that there is a clear dispute relating to the existence of debt as provided u/s 5(6)(c) of the Code, since the Petitioner has not completed the project in time - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1408 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
Service of Demand notice to Corporate Debtor - Applicant represents that efforts were made to serve to the registered office of the Corporate Debtor, however, the same has not been delivered - HELD THAT:- Comparing from the names as given in the Company Master Data as directors to the Corporate Debtor with that of the addresses as disclosed with the e-mail, both the names do not correlate with each other, and therefore, we are unable to ascertain as to whether the Demand Notice was served to the whole time director or designated partner or key managerial personnel as contemplated under the Rules namely Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.
It is required to be seen that in relation to the Operational Creditor under the provisions of I&B Code, 2016, in particular, a Notice of Demand is required to be served on the Corporate Debtor in compliance with Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. In the absence of service of Demand Notice upon the Corporate Debtor as required to be served, taking into consideration, the Demand Notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code, 2016 read with attendant Rules, notice of dispute, if any, cannot be issued by the Corporate Debtor as the Corporate Debtor is prevented from being privy to the Demand Notice as raised or to comply with Demand Notice in relation to the Claim within the period mandated of ten days as contemplated under Section 8 of IBC, 2016.
Taking into consideration Section 9(5)(ii) of the I&B Code, 2016, as the Notice of Demand is not served upon the Corporate Debtor, we are constrained to dismiss the Application.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1407 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor themselves have filed a Writ Appeal against the 12(3) Settlement arrived at between the parties, which goes on to show that there exists a dispute.
There is a genuine dispute between the parties and the defence raised by the Corporate Debtor on the grounds of existence of a dispute are real and not spurious, hypothetical, illusory or misconceived.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1406 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - financial service provider - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The definition of financial services as defined under section 3(16) of IBC is not limited to 9 activities as shown at clause (a) to (i) of section 3(16). The aforesaid clauses (a) to (i) are inclusive which means there are other services which come within meaning of financial service and in the instant case the certificate of registration issued by the RBI shows that the Corporate Debtor is non-banking financial company prohibited from taking public deposits. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent being a non-banking financial company and being a financial service provider does not come in the purview of IBC as it is not a corporate person/ Corporate Debtor.
In view of the judgements of RANDHIRAJ THAKUR DIRECTOR, MAYFAIR CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS M/S. JINDAL SAXENA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND MAYFAIR CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED [2018 (10) TMI 913 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] the Respondent being a non-banking financial company carrying business of financial institution and thereby it being financial service provider cannot be included within the purview of corporate person/ corporate debtor and the IBC.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1405 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOCHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditor or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Registry of this Tribunal has issued a notice to the Corporate Debtor intimating about the application filed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Under Section 7 and directed the Corporate Debtor to appear before the Tribunal on 04.12.2019. The notice to Corporate Debtor was duly served. The Corporate Debtor has not appeared before this Tribunal. Therefore, the case has decided ex parte - The Financial Creditor falls under section 5(7) can file an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against a Corporate Debtor before this Adjudicating Authority when the default has occurred. No doubt the debt claimed is a financial debt as defined under section 5(8) of I & B Code.
The IRP proposed also has filed a declaration in Form 2 affirming that he is a registered insolvency professional and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. Therefore, the application on behalf of Financial Creditor is complete.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1402 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CUTTACK BENCH
Maintainability of application- initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The period of limitation to claim this payment is three years under Limitation Act, 1963. This application was filed on 04.04.2019. Hence, the Invoices mentioned above are clearly barred by limitation.
Also, it is clear that there are pre-existing disputes between the parties regarding the quality of goods supplied.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1400 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
Removal of attachment/charge on the properties - removal of attachment/charge on the properties in question as registered with the revenue department of the Government of Gujarat - prayer to enjoy the properties in question absolutely and without any encumbrance - Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The dues of the Government are not considered as a secured debt under Section 3(31) of the Code, do not get precedence over secured creditors under Section 53 and do not fall in Clause(b) of Section 53, but fall under Clause(e) of Section 53 - Hence, it is clear that the amount dues to the Central Govt. and State Govt. shall be paid after the dues of the financial secured creditors are paid. In this case, the admitted dues of the secured creditor were ₹ 139.60 Crores, whereas the liquidation proceeds of ₹ 35.60 crores could satisfy 25.5% of the secured financial creditor's admitted dues. Hence, there is no assets available for payment of dues of the Income Tax Deptt., Govt. of India and State Tax Deptt., Govt. of Gujarat.
Application is admitted to the extent that the concerned Dept. of the State Government is directed to remove the attachment/charge on the properties of the Corporate Debtor under Liquidation; already sold on 26.03.2018 under e-auction by the Liquidator, from the Register maintained by the Mamlatdar, Revenue Deptt., Govt. of Gujarat. The peaceful possession of the said property be handed over to the Buyer, M/s. Haq Steels & Metaliks Ltd.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1399 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The date of default mentioned in the Petition is 01.04.2015 - This claim pertains to transactions in the year 2012-13. The date of default mentioned in the Petition is 01.04.2015. However, this is of no material significance because even if we assume the date of default to be 01.04.2015, the question of limitation has to be considered.
It is not the case of the Operational Creditor that any acknowledgement of liability has been made by the Corporate Debtor or that any payment has been received within the period of limitation, in which case the applicability of section 18 or section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, may have a bearing.
Since the petition itself is outside the period of limitation, we refrain from going into the merits of the matter at this stage - application rejected.
........
|
