TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 1 lakh. It is stated that the debt due has been accepted. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Considering the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in SESH NATH SINGH ANR. VERSUS BAIDYABATI SHEORAPHULI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND ANR. [ 2021 (3) TMI 1183 - SUPREME COURT] , we have no difficulty to state that Section 18 of the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under IBC and that if there is acknowledgment of debt in the balance-sheets or the OTS Proposal, the period of limitation would get extended if the acknowledgment is made before the period of limitation expires. Considering the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority based on balance-sheets and even keeping in view the admitted dates when OTS Proposals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After hearing both the sides, the Adjudicating Authority admitted the Application and hence the present Appeal. 5. The Appeal claims and Learned Counsel for the Appellant is arguing that in the present matter, the date of NPA is 3rd December, 2015 and Application under Section 7 was filed on 04th July, 2019 which was more than three years from the date of NPA. According to the Learned Counsel under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of Limitation is three years and the Application filed beyond period of three years should have been dismissed. 6. In support of such submission the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is relying on the Judgment in the matter of B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parag Gupta and Associ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s they are against the Corporate Debtor and thus kept back. 9. We have seen the copy of the Reply-Affidavit which was filed by the Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority. The copy is at Annexure A filed by the present Respondent-Bank along with Reply of the Respondent (Diary No. 22006). The Learned Counsel for the Respondent points out Paragraph 19 of that Reply filed by the Corporate Debtor where clearly the Corporate Debtor accepted that principal amount due and in default reflecting in their accounts was ₹ 41.67 Crores. It is stated that this is admittedly more than ₹ 1 lakh. It is stated that the debt due has been accepted. 10. The Corporate Debtor further stated in the Reply in Paragraph 30 as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfied. Therefore, the aspect of limitation raised as one of the defences by the Corporate Debtor does not hold water. 13. The application made by the Financial Creditor is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is in excess of minimum amount of one lakh rupees stipulated under Section 4 (1) of the IBC at the relevant time. Therefore, the default stands established and there is no reason to deny the admission of the Petition. In view of this, this Adjudicating Authority admits this Petition and orders initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. 12. As regards limitation, reference may be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of an application, whether under Section 7 or under Section 9 of the IBC, is default on the part of the Corporate Debtor, and the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963, as far as may be, have been applied to proceedings under the IBC, there is no reason why Section 14 or 18 of the Limitation Act would not apply for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation. 92. In other words, the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings under the IBC in the NCLT/NCLAT. To quote Shah J. in New India Sugar Mill Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar, It is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expression used therein should ordinarily be understood in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
