9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench [A.A - in short]) against the Respondent - Kieon Developers Private Limited which came to be rejected on the ground of limitation. 2. The Appellant, in short, claims that it had booked a flat with the Respondent on 16th May, 2012 and paid an amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs and the allotment letter was issued to the Appellant. Subsequently, on 16.07.2012, an MOU (Annexure - D - Page - 42) was executed between the Appellant and Respondent and both the parties cancelled the booking on terms and conditions as laid down in the MOU. The Respondent agreed to pay the Appellant the amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs within 18 months from the date of receipt of the boking amount, i.e. on or before 15th November, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt concerned was barred by limitation. The date of default was stated to be 21.07.2017 which was date of the written statement in the Suit. The Adjudicating Authority observed that written statement filed in the Suit did not amount to acknowledgement of the debt and could not reset the limitation. Consequently, the Application was rejected. 4. In the Appeal before us, the Appellant has canvassed its case as mentioned above and the Respondent - Corporate Debtor has (in Affidavit in Reply filed) reiterated the contentions as were raised before the Adjudicating Authority and insisted that considering the dates of the MOU and the amount concerned, debt was barred by limitation and thus, the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the Applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he six monthly payment as per clause 1 herein is not paid to the Party of the First Part. 3. It is clarified that in case of the failure of the Party of the First Part to refund the booking amount on or before 15th November 2013, the allotment of the said flat to the Party of the Second Part shall stand confirmed and the Party of the Second Part may make the balance payment as per the allotment letter and register the same in his or his nominee's favour. It is further clarified that the Party of the First Part shall not ask for any sums of moneys as transfer for registering the document in the name of the nominee of the Party of the First Part." It appears that the Appellant received some amounts which now Appellant classifies as towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation was filed, the amount due and outstanding was clearly more than Rs. 1 Lakh and thus, in our view, the Application under Section 7 could not have been rejected as time barred. There was a debt which was due and the default was of more than Rs. 1 Lakh and therefore, it was sufficient to trigger Section 7 proceeding. 7. Neither the parties nor the Impugned Order shows that there was any other defect in the Section 7 Application which had been moved so as to say that the Application was not complete. In that view of the matter, the Application filed before NCLT deserves to be admitted. 8. For reasons mentioned, the Appeal is allowed. We remit back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. On receiving copy of the present Order, the Adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
