2021 (5) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... latter to accept his claim. 2. The facts leading to the Application are as follows: i. The Corporate Debtor viz. Roofit Industries Limited, was ordered into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 28.06.2017 in a Petition u/s 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code). Since the resolution could not succeed this Bench by order dated 22.01.2018 directed the Corporate Debtor to be liquidated in terms of Chapter III of the Code. ii. It is stated by the Applicant that one M/s Shastri Associates, one of the suppliers of the Corporate Debtor issued a Bill of Exchange dated 30.08.2001 in favor of the Applicant for Rs.. 5,25,844/- (including discounting charges of Rs.. 26,580/-) in connection with the sale of Raw Asb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....96, Perin Nariman Street, Fort Bombay 400 001 promise to pay at Mumbai to DEEPAK SAMPAT order a sum of Rs. 4,78,648/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Six Hundred Forty Eight Only) for value renewed. Place: Mumbai Date: 27.05.2002 For ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, Sd/- Director" vi. The Corporate Debtor made a payment of Rs.. 16,582/- towards discounting charges leaving the balance amount of Rs.. 4,62,066/-. The Corporate Debtor issued a cheque for Rs.. 4,62,066/- bearing no. 812242 dated 15.12.2002. The Applicant deposited the cheque with his bank viz., Bank of Baroda, Shimpoli Branch on 29.05.2003. The Bank by its advice dated 05.06.2003 dishonoured the cheque on the ground of 'insufficient funds'. vii. After the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eply to the Application. During hearing however, he submitted that the claim of the Applicant has been rejected on account of inordinate delay. The present Application has also been filed after considerable delay. Taking the facts and circumstances of the matter into consideration the Adjudicating Authority may pass appropriate orders. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties as well as the Liquidator himself. 5. The averments made in the Application indicate that the latest Promissory Note for Rs.. 4,78,648/- was executed by the Corporate Debtor on 27.05.2002 in favor of the Applicant. The Promissory Note contained that the Corporate Debtor would pay the amount at 182 days from that date and issued a PDC for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. The breach on the part of the Corporate Debtor gave rise to a right to the Applicant to payment. Meanwhile however, the Corporate Debtor issued another cheque dated 15.12.2002 for the balance amount of Rs.. 4,62,066/-. It was dishonoured by the bank on 05.06.2003. The said claim amount of Rs.. 4,62,066/- thus became due and payable with effect from 05.06.2003. It could only be realized in terms of Article 31 of the Limitation Act, within three years thereof. The Applicant did not take any action/step for realization of the amount within that period nor did he issue any demand for the said amount. As per his averments, the due date of making a claim before the liquidator expired on February 2018. The fact of CIRP of a Company and it goi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs being held against the Corporate Debtor before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Applicant states that the Applicant is 72 years old senior citizen. After the voluntary service retirement, the Applicant invested his hard earned money in the Corporate Debtor company and till date has not received the default amount. Being old age, without any source of income in addition to loss of money to the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant is facing difficulties in daily livelihood." 10. The averments do not make out even 'good' much less 'sufficient' cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, the present appeal would be grossly barred by limitation. Even otherwise the claim was also barred by limitation having been filed....