TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Debtor was declared as NPA on 30.06.2002, the time for the purpose of limitation, starts from the said date which long expires by the date of filing this Application i.e., 05.06.2020. In order to prove that the debt due to the Financial Creditor is acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor, the Counsel draws the attention of this Tribunal to the Balance Sheet filed by the Corporate Debtor on 31.03.2020 wherein the debt due to the Financial Creditor is shown - contention of the Counsel is that since, the dispute is pending before the DRT, the same is shown as non-current liability and unless the DRT adjudicates the liability of the Petitioner it would not become a debt. This Tribunal finds good amount of force in the said argument. Apart f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent filed counter denying the contention of the Petition being barred by the limitation and further contended that: i. Originally ₹ 75 Lakhs was sanctioned by the UCO Bank, as a loan to the Applicant/Corporate Debtor. As the Corporate committed default, it was declared as NPA on 30.06.2002. Although the demand was made by the Bank, the amount due was not paid, hence the O.A. No. 36/2003 was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Hence, necessary action was taken by the Bank within the period of limitation and still the O.A. No. 36/2003 is pending before the DRT, Visakhapatnam for adjudication. ii. Meanwhile the UCO Bank assigned the debt, along with the Securities, in favour of the Respondent/Financial Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant and Counsel for the Respondent. The Admitted fact is that the Applicant/Corporate Debtor was declared as NPA on 30.06.2002. The present Company Petition CP(IB) No. 87/7/AMR/2020 is filed on 05.06.2020. According to the contention of the Counsel for the Applicant it is Article 137 of the Limitation Act that is applicable to the Petition under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 for the purpose of limitation. 5. The Counsel for the Applicant relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 (10) Supreme Court Cases 572 between Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Another wherein it was held that Article 62 applies only to Suits. For an Application under Section 7 of IBC, it is article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor under a judgement and decree/or in terms of certificate of recovery or any part there of remaining unpaid. 8. The said argument turns futile in the light of the admitted fact that the matter is still pending before the DRT and that it is awaiting trial. The purport of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above is very clear that the limitation would start from the date of the judgement or decree passed by the DRT or any other Tribunal on from the date of issuance of certificate of recovery in favour of the Financial Creditor. Since, the matter is still pending before the DRT, the said judgement does not support that the contention that the application is within limitation. 9. The Counsel for the Respondent relies on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner it would not become a debt. This Tribunal finds good amount of force in the said argument. Apart from that, the amount shown is ₹ 62,05,337/- which is well below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which is ₹ 1 Crore as on the date of fling the Petition. 12. Hence, I consider that the Company petition is filed beyond the period of limitation specified under Article 137 and cannot be entertained. The CP (IB) No. 82/7/AMR/2020 is consequently dismissed, however, with liberty to file a fresh application if the Respondent so chooses, after the decree or judgement of the DRT in the case pending between the parties if such right accrues to the Applicant. Accordingly, I.A. No. 119/2021 is allowed and CP (IB) No. 82 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
