TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k has filed the present application on 05.02.2019. Hence, the facts which are material in respect of the Limitation for maintainability of the application need to be considered first. The date of default as averred by the Petitioner in the Part-IV of the application is 23.05.2014 - That the Petitioner has placed two Letters dated 08.09.2015 showing 'Acknowledgement of Debt/ Liability by the Borrowers' made by the Respondent. Even if one takes into account the abovementioned acknowledgement letters, the limitation gets extended till 07.09.2018 only. However, the Petition in the instant case by the Financial Creditor is filed only on 05.02.2019. Further, the Respondent Company has raised a specific objection in its reply regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verments made by the Petitioner. 3. Authorised Share Capital of the Respondent Company is ₹ 4,25,00,000 and Paid-up Share Capital of the Company is ₹ 2,23,36,840 as per the averments made by the Petitioner. 4. It is the Petitioner's case that it had provided: Term Loan Facility-I (review) of ₹ 8,77,00,000.00 Cash Credit Facility of ₹ 10,00,00,000.00 (Enhancement) Term Loan Facility-II of ₹ 4,23,00,000.00 (review) Inland LC of ₹ 7,00,00,000.00 as on CSI dated 29.12.2015 by Financial Creditor. (Created Charge ID-10404254 - on 28/ 12/2012 modified on 02/01/2016) Term Loan Facility-I of ₹ 8,77,00,000.00 Cash Credit Facility of ₹ 2,00,000.00 as per CSI dated 29.11.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debt Recovery Tribunal-111, Delhi and the same is pending adjudication. It is specifically submitted that since the Original Application filed on behalf of the Applicant Bank is still pending before the Ld. DRT-III, Delhi, therefore, as on date there is no adjudicated debt against the Answering Respondent. Hence, the Answering Respondent is not liable to pay any amount whatsoever to the Applicant Bank as on date . 173. Without Prejudice to the foregoing it is further pertinent to mention here that the Answering Respondent has also filed his Written Statement in aforesaid OA along with Counter Claim for an amount of ₹ 177 Crore against the Applicant Bank and the same is also pending adjudication. Therefore, in view of pendency of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to produce any document that Sh. Murali nummala is the Authorised Person to file present Application and therefore, the present Application is bad in law and is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. 9. That the Petitioner had filed its Rejoinder on 07.06.2019 and had given the following rebuttal to the objections made by the Respondent. The Para-wise reply to the objections made by the Respondent are reproduced below : 171. That the contents of this para are matter of record. It is however submitted that Respondents presented the false and cooked story... 173. That the contents of this para are matter of record. It is however submitted that Respondents presented the false and cooked story.. 174. That the conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 23988 Of 2017 , in which the Hon'ble Court held the following : 27. 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 , therefore, accrues when a default occurs. If the default has occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, save and except in those cases where, in the facts of the case, Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be applied to condone the delay in filing such application . 13. That the Petitioner has placed two Letters dated 08.09.2015 showing 'Acknowledgement of Debt/ Liability b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
