TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the settled principal of law, the petitioner is entitled to get it within three years from the date when the first default occurs. Since for the first time on demand, payment was made by the CD on 21.12.2010, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be accepted only as per article 137 of the Limitation Act, within three years, when right to apply accrues and here in the case in hand, the default was occurred for the first time on 21.12.2010, therefore, the petitioner was required to submit its claim within three years from 21.12.2010 i.e. on or before 20/12/2013 and in view of the decisions referred above in our considered view limitation cannot be extended on the basis of last payment made by the CD to the petitioner ,i.e from 22/03/2019 in view of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The claim of interest of the petitioner is barred by limitation and it is liable to be rejected - there are no option but to reject the prayer of the petitioner to direct the RP to admit the claim of the applicant company to the tune of ₹ 5,63,67,620/- towards the interest component alongwith the principal component - application dismissed. - IB-1790/ND/20 19 IA/2295/2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a result of rejection of the CD in the booking the interest amount and deducting TDS amount thereon. Further, as per the settled law, the claim of the interest in the proceedings under the IBC has to be taken into consideration as per the contention mentioned in the loan agreement and in the loan agreement, the rate of interest is 18 % per annum is mentioned. Further, there is delay in payment of the amount, therefore, the applicant is entitled to get the interest @ 18 % per annum and the refusal of IRP is contrary to the provision of law. 4. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant and perused the averments made in the application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant in course of his arguments submitted that the RP has admitted the principal amount but rejected the interest amount, which the RP is not under law empowered to reject. She further submitted that once the principal amount is admitted then the RP is liable to accept the interest amount too and it cannot be rejected on the ground that it is not shown in the books of account of the CD and no TDS has been deducted by the CD. She further submitted that the applicant has enclosed the agreement, which is at page 36 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, there is no ledger account of the CD produced before us. The only ledger account is the ledger account of the petitioner. 7. At this juncture, we would like to refer the loan agreement, which is at page no. 36 of the petition and from the perusal of the conditions mentioned in the loan agreement, we noticed that the loan amount was paid by the petitioner to the CD on demand and repayment of loan was also on demand. In course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner company is the sister concern of the CD. When we examined the loan agreement then we find that it is only on a plain paper and no stamp has been affixed on it and on the basis of that, the petitioner has claimed the amount paid to CD and the principal amount has been admitted by the RP. Of course, the interest amount has been refused on the ground that it is not reflected in the books of account of the CD. Even if it is presumed that the loan agreement on a plain paper is a valid agreement then we noticed that the amount, which was paid by the petitioner to the CD and by the CD to the petitioner both are on demand. 8. From the perusal of the document, which the petitioner has enc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Hon ble NCLAT in a case of Vimal Kumar Sabula Vs. Bank of India in Company Appeal (AT Insolvency) 1166 of 2019 decided on 05.03.2020 by three members Bench of the Hon ble NCLAT .We have gone through the decision and we noticed that the Hon ble NCLAT in para 11 of the judgment discussed the section 19 of the limitation Act and after considering the provisions of section 19 of the Limitation Act in para 1.1 Hon ble NCLAT held that It is to be seen that Article 19 of the Limitation Act will fall under the category of first division of schedule which applies to the suits. However, Section 7 of the IBC is not a suit and as held by Hon ble Supreme Court, Section 7 is an Application under the IBC which falls under the category of Application in para II of 3rd division. Therefore, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the Article 137 will apply to the Applications filed under Section 7 9 of the IBC. Therefore, the stand of the Respondent No. 1 that the period of limitation will get extended from the date of payment of amount by the Guarantor on 01.04.2017 cannot be a ground and the limitation will not get extended. Therefore, the submission made by the Respondent no. 1 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not before us, therefore, we are not inclined to pass any order on the findings given by the IRP, on the admission of principal amount but we must express our displeasure that the IRP has acted contrary to the provision of law and allowed the claim i.e. the principal amount of the claim of the petitioner, which is contrary to the settled principal laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court and Hon ble NCLAT on the point of limitation. So far the interest amount is concerned, for the reasons discussed above since the claim of the petitioner is barred by the limitation therefore, we are unable to accept this prayer of the petitioner to direct the IRP to allow the interest amount. 13. For the reasons discussed above, we have no option but to reject the prayer of the petitioner to direct the RP to admit the claim of the applicant company to the tune of ₹ 5,63,67,620/- towards the interest component alongwith the principal component. 14. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner to allow interest on the principal amount is hereby rejected and application stands DISMISSED. 15. Before parting, we direct the R.P to re-examine the principle of law on the point of limitation a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
