9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor on the ground that it has defaulted repaying an amount of Rs. 183,75,51,582 as on 01.10.2018 as against the loans availed by the Corporate Debtor. 2. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Corporate Debtor availed credit facilities for an amount of Rs. 31 Crores under the head of "Working Capital Loan", Rs. 50 Crores under the head of "Rupee Term Loan-I", Rs. 25 Crores under the head of "Rupee Term Loan-II", Rs. 30 Crores under the head of "Rupee Term Loan-Ill", Rs. 22.73 Crores under the head of "Funded Interest Term Loan", and Rs. 6.64 Crores under the head of "Term Loan" in aggregate, it comes to Rs. 165.37 Crores. 3. To support this claim, the Creditor Bank filed dates and events disclosing existence of deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst this case, the Corporate Debtor counsel has set up a defence stating that the Creditor Bank on its own showing has revealed that the date of occurrence of default as 30.06.2015, but whereas this petition being filed on 24.10.2018, it is self-evident that this petition has been filed after completion of three years from the date of occurrence of default, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the debt claim is barred by limitation. 6. To give justification to this argument, the Corporate Debtor counsel has drawn the attention of this Bench to sub-section 12 of Section 3 and Section 7 of the Code for saying that limitation against the claim will start running from the date of occurrence of default. 7. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent would amount to an acknowledgement extending period of limitation under Section 18(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963. 9. To revert this argument, the Corporate Debtor has not placed any material showing that this debt has not been reflected in the books of the Corporate Debtor. 10. As against this argument, the Corporate Debtor adverted para 27 of a case in between B.K. Educational Services (P.) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates (MANU/SC/1160/2018) decided by Honourable Supreme Court which is as follows: "27. It is thus clear that since the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. "The right to sue" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk was unable to call for JLM to discuss the proposal in the absence of the details of the investor identified by the Corporate Debtor, the proposed plan of action of the investor for the revival of the Corporate Debtor, contours of the settlement proposal, therefore the bank made a request to furnish a fully tied up proposal to take up the same to the JIM, to which, the Creditor bank counsel says till date no response has come from the Corporate Debtor. 14. On looking at the submissions of either side, we observe that had there been an intention to the Corporate Debtor to settle this claim amount through OTS, the Debtor company would have responded to the letter dated 20.06.2017 but whereas there is no material reflecting that this Corpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be decided on factual aspects except to the legal aspects as aforementioned. In a situation like this, this limitation issue cannot be called as a mixture of factual as well as legal whereby the opportunity to submit the case from the side of the Corporate Debtor has already been provided, today by seeing the rejoinder filed by the Creditor Bank, the Corporate Debtor counsel cannot say that he needs some more time to argue this matter. Moreover, in IBC proceedings, no procedure is set out for completion of pleadings, the only thing that is required to be complied is providing an opportunity to the Corporate Debtor to defend the case. That has been provided. 18. On perusal of the process file, we have come to know that this case was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Security Interest Act, 2002; (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. II. That Supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. III. That the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of IBC shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. IV. That the order of moratorium shall have effect from 25.02.2019 till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
