Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (3) TMI 1336 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor - Application filed u/s 95 of the IBC 2016 read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules 2019 - time limitation. HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that nowhere in the report of RP there is mentioning of revival letter dated 19.09.2017 given by the respondent which creates doubt about signing of revival letter by the respondent. Therefore contention of the respondent shows that she has never signed any such revival letter appears to be genuine. No reason is given by the applicant for non-filing of revival letter along with the petition or giving to the RP as it is not mentioned in the RP report nor copy annexed - The revival letter as well as acknowledgement of service of notice was not filed along with application. No reason given for not filing the same. Those were filed later-on which creates doubt of their genuineness. Hence the application is not within the period of limitation without revival letter. However it will be in the interest of justice to decide the matter on other aspects so as to avoid remand of matter. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - There is no explanation how the date of default has been changed from 30.06.2018 to 24.12.2019. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant has issued notice under SARFAESI Act on 14.06.2019 and are relying upon same. No further notice is issued by the applicant when they have mentioned date of default as 24.12.2019 there was no reason for the applicant to issue notice prior to default i.e. on 14.06.2019. It means that the applicant has issued notice dated 14.06.2019 without there being default in repayment. Therefore to consider default dated 24.12.2019 notice dated 14.06.2019 cannot said to be invocation of guarantee by the applicant. If we consider date of default as 24.12.2019 no further notice of invoking guarantee was issued thereafter to the guarantor. Considering these important dates it appears that the guarantee is not invoked when the default occurred so the petition is liable to be dismissed. The case in hand the date of default mentioned is 30.06.2018 and the date of demand notice is 14.06.2019. When a limitation period is expired during the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 the directions are specifically given in para-III of the order. The directions clearly give 90 days further period from 01.03.2022. It is also mentioned that in the event of actual balance period of limitation remains is greater than 90 days from 01.03.2022 in that case longer period shall apply. So if the date of default is taken into consideration as 30.06.2018 the applicant will have only 90 days limitation period to file an application. If the date of notice is considered i.e. 14.06.2019 the applicant has the actual balance period remaining i.e. 106 days to file the application. If date of default as per application as 24.12.2019 is considered there is no invocation of guarantee. The petition itself is defective as well as not within the period of limitation - Petition dismissed.
|