Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 68 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiation of CIRP for the resolution of an unresolved financial debt - NCLT Admitted to the application - time limitation - it is alleged that though the Financial Creditor had mentioned that the default occurred on 31.03.2014 but the date of default mentioned in part IV of the application filed under Section 7 of the Code is 01.06.2015. HELD THAT:- In the present case, the claim w.e.f. 01.06.2015 till 01.06.2018 was live because the Financial Creditor could have filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code during this period and the occurrence of one time settlement/compromise, initiated at the instance of the Corporate Debtor during this period vide its letter dated 31.01.2018 had revived the period of limitation from 31.01.2018 to 31.01.2021 in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the application under Section 7 of the Code having been filed on 15.01.2021 is thus within the period of limitation. In the given facts and circumstances of the case Vidarbha Industries Power Limited [2022 (7) TMI 581 - SUPREME COURT], relied upon by the Appellant, is not applicable because there is a clear admission on the part of the Corporate Debtor of the amount of debt due in view of the letter dated 31.01.2018. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. SURESH KUMAR REDDY VERSUS CANARA BANK & ORS. [2023 (5) TMI 570 - SUPREME COURT] has held that it was clarified by the order in review that the decision in the case of Vidarbha Industries was in the setting of facts of the case before this court. Hence, the decision in the case of Vidarbha Industries cannot be read and understood as taking a view which is contrary to the view taken in the cases of Innovative Industries and E.S. Krishnamurthy [2021 (12) TMI 683 - SUPREME COURT]. The view taken in the case of Innovative Industries still holds good. There is hardly any merit in these two appeals which do not require any interference and therefore, the present appeals are hereby dismissed.
|