9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td.) under Section 60 (5) of the IBC, 2016 praying therein to direct the IRP to admit the claim of the applicant company to the tune of Rs. 5,63,67,620/- towards the interest component. 2. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pankaj Khaitan, Ld. RP, who appeared in person and perused the averments made in the application. 3. The facts mentioned in the application in short are that the applicant has provided a loan facility to the Corporate debtor (herein after CD) vide agreement dated 06.07.2010. Further, CIRP was initiated against the said CD vide order dated 29.09.2020 and Mr. Pankaj Khaitan was appointed as IRP. Further, the applicant has filed its claim to the tune of Rs. 10,46,64,558 /- as a financial creditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted during the CIRP period he had received several documents for the period 2010-2011 and the letter head used by the applicant was different from the letter head, which is used for the agreement and this letter head is being used by the applicant during the year 2018-2019 onwards and so reject the claim of the petitioner. He further submitted applicant is related party u/s 5(24) i of IBC. 6. Now, in the light of the submissions raised on behalf of the parties, we shall consider the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. At this juncture, we have gone through the documents on the basis of which, the petitioner is claiming the interest and the principal amount and we noticed the basis of claim is based on the agreement dated 06.07.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made by the petitioner and on the basis of that ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since last amount was repaid by the CD on 22/03/2019, therefore, their claim is within time. 9. Therefore, at this juncture, we would like to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 6347 OF 2019 in the case of BABULAL VARDHARJT GURJAR ..... .Appellant(s) Vs. VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUS TRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s and the same is quoted below: -- "The discussion foregoing leads to the inescapable conclusion that the application made by the respondent No. 2 under Section 7 of the Code in the month of March 2018, seeking initiation of CIRP in respect of the corporate debtor with specijic assertion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being barred by limitation." 10. At this juncture, we would also like to refer the decision 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. But the petitioner on the basis of the document, which is hopelessly time barred raised claim before the IRP and IRP without examining this fact that whether the amount claimed by the petitioner is within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
