Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2017 (11) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 698 - Tri - Companies LawCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process -proof of existence of proof - period of limitation - Held that:- Even though the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 may not be applicable to IBC, 2016 yet the petition suffers from doctrine of delay and laches as the silence on the part of the petitioner to enforce its claim for a period of more than 5 years without approaching any judicial Forum defeats the claim and the petitioner cannot take recourse or umbrage to the provisions of IBC, 2016 with a view to initiate CIRP to recover the amounts alleged to be due to it from the respondent Company. Perusal of the Certificate dated 11.9.2017 which was also produced beyond the mandatory period has not satisfied the requirement in relation to unpaid liability as the same has not been reflected therein as claimed by the petitioner in its application. Also it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble NCLAT has held in Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. (2017 (8) TMI 1198 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI ) wherein at Paragraph 32 of the said judgment, it has been held that demand notice under Section 8 on behalf of the Operational Creditor cannot be issued by any person in the absence of any authority of the Board of Directors, and holding no position with or in relation to the Operational Creditor. However, in the present instance, no such authorization to issue such a notice by the legal Counsel on behalf of the Operational Creditor has been produced before this Tribunal by the petitioner. Thus no merit in the application as filed by the petitioner Company.
|