Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 582 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of dues - time limitation - Appellant submits that the application filed by the 1st Respondent / Bank (Financial Creditor) is time barred - the said application was filed on 01.04.2019 but the date of default mentioned in Section 7 application before the Adjudicating Authority was on 01.01.2016 - it is the stand of the Appellant that the application filed by the 1st Respondent / Bank after the expiry of three years is hit by the plea of ‘Limitation’. HELD THAT:- The requirement of Section 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act are independent and not cumulative. Further, the actual payment of money is not an essential one under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but it is an essential one under Section 19 of the Act. An acknowledgment of debt interrupts the running of prescription. An acknowledgement only extends the period of limitation as per decision P. SREEDEVI VERSUS P. APPU [1990 (8) TMI 412 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. It is to be remembered that a mere denial will not take sheen off the document and the claim of creditor remains alive within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Besides this, an acknowledgement is to be an ‘acknowledgement of debt’ and must involve an admission of subsisting relationship of debtor and creditor; and an intention to continue it and till it is lawfully determined must also be evident as per decision MEKA VENKATADRI APPA ROW BAHADUR ZEMINDAR GARU AND ORS. VERSUS RAJA PARTHASARATHY APPA ROW BAHADUR ZEMINDAR GARU AND VICE-VERSA [1921 (3) TMI 4 - PRIVY COUNCIL]. An acknowledgement does not create a new right. This Tribunal, had perused the various confirmation letters as stated supra which are legally valid and binding documents between the inter se parties and the same cannot be repudiated on one pretext or other. Therefore, this Tribunal comes to an inevitable, inescapable and irresistible conclusion that the date of default i.e 01.01.2016 gets extended by the debit confirmation letters secured by the 1st Respondent/Bank from the Corporate Debtor (for making a new period run from the date of debit confirmation letters) towards the outstanding debt in ‘Loan Account’. Indeed, the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, 2016 was filed by the 1st Respondent/Bank on 01.04.2019 before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ within the period of Limitation. Furthermore, in view of the fact, that ingredients of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are quite applicable both for ‘Suit’ and ‘Application’ and the debit confirmation letters in the instant case were duly acknowledged in accordance with Law laid down on the subject, the instant Appeal deserves to be dismissed - Appeal dismissed.
|