TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es the debt, but extends the period of limitation by three years from that date. The argument that limitation would stand extended from the period when the corporate debtor received their own payments from Senbo Engineering Ltd. i.e. in February, 2015 is misconceived. In view of the above, we find that this petition which was filed on 26.04.2017 is time barred and therefore not a legally recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e corporate debtor is stated to be a sub-contractor of Senbo Engineering Ltd., who are retained to execute work for the Metro Railway Project at Dum Dum Kolkata. The operational creditor raised bills dated 09.01.2014, 01.02.2014 and 01.03.2014 for a total sum of ₹ 21,43,051/- in terms of the work order. It is submitted that against the said invoices, the corporate debtor has merely remitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n they received their payments from Senbo Engineering Ltd. Ld. Counsel further submits that they have reasons to believe that the payment has been received by Corporate Debtor in February, 2015 and hence the limitation to repay the same would be calculated from the said period. 4. We are unable to appreciate the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for Operational Creditor. The email dated 07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
