TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of debt on 24.2.2015, 29.4.2015 and 26.6.2015 to ARCIL. Appeal dismissed. - COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(INSOLVENCY) NO.655 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2019 - Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson) AND Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) For Appellant: Mr. Vishwas K. Shah with Ms Bhavna V. Shah, Ms Aastha Mehta, Mr. Divyang Chandiramani, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocate with Ms Neha Naik and Ms Sylona Mohapatra, Advocates. Mr. Mudit Sharma, CRP. JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as ARCIL ), Financial Creditor, filed an application under Section 7 of Insolvency Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without authority being also insufficiently stamped was declared to be invalid. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Educational Services Private Limited Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates to suggest that the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the I B Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, ARCIL submitted that there is no denial of debt and default by Corporate Debtor or the appellant. It is submitted that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad as relied by the appellant has already been set aside and quashed by the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 7 accrues on or after 1st December, 2016 and therefore, the application under Section 7 cannot be held to be barred by limitation. 6. The question whether the claim is barred by limitation to see that there is no debt payable in law, we hold that the claim of ARCIL is not barred by limitation, as the assignment deed was made in favour of ARCIL on 28.3.2014 which was declared invalid by DRT, Ahmedabad by an order dated 10.6.2016 and thereafter having revived pursuant to Hon ble Gujarat High Court order. Apart from the above fact, we find that the Corporate Debtor offered three settlement proposals for payment of debt on 24.2.2015, 29.4.2015 and 26.6.2015 to ARCIL. 7. In view of the aforesaid finding no relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
