TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be extended because the corporate debtor's balance sheets show that the debt is still to be payable. In case of 'V. Padmakumar' [ 2020 (3) TMI 1244 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI ], Hon. NCLAT dealt with this aspect and held that If the argument is accepted that the Balance Sheet / Annual Return of the 'Corporate Debtor' amounts to acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 then in such case, it is to be held that no limitation would be applicable because every year, it is mandatory for the 'Corporate Debtor' to file Balance Sheet/ Annual Return, which is not the law. Thus, the acknowledgement of the debt in the balance sheets of the corporate debtor does not help ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inancial debt of Rs.1,89,41,55,485/-. 2. The following facts are not in dispute. 3. By various sanction letters dated 01.12.2006, the Financial Creditor granted and disbursed in favor of the Corporate Debtor, term loan and cash credit facilities. Terms of repayment of the loan had been extended from time to time. The corporate debtor committed default, and on 10.06.2014, its loan account has declared to be a Non Performing Asset ( NPA ) (Para 2, Part IV of the Financial Creditor's application filed under Rule 4 of IBBI (Application to adjudicating authority) rules 2016). 4. The Financial Creditor filed this application to start the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor on 19.09.2018. 5. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 18 of Law of Limitation, the time to file this application stands extended. Moreover, on 18.09.2017, the Corporate Debtor submitted to the bank an OTS Proposal, thereby admitting the debt. This application has been filed within three years therefrom, it is not time barred. 9. As against this, the Learned Sr. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submitted that there is no dispute relating to the fact that 10.06.2014 is the date of default. Since this application has been filed on 19.09.2018, it is filed beyond the period of three years as stated in Article 137 of Law of Limitation. The Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that the statement of the Corporate Debtor relating to the debts stated in its balance sheets cannot be sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period of Limitation said to be extended because the corporate debtor's balance sheets show that the debt is still to be payable. 13. In case of 'V. Padmakumar', Hon. NCLAT dealt with this aspect and held that: (i) As the filing of Balance Sheet/ Annual Return being mandatory under Section 92(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, failing of which attracts penal action under Section 92(5) (6), the Balance Sheet / Annual Return of the 'Corporate Debtor' cannot be treated to be an acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) If the argument is accepted that the Balance Sheet / Annual Return of the 'Corporate Debtor' amounts to acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, accrues when a default occurs. If the default has occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, save and except in those cases where, in the facts of the case, Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be applied to condone the delay in filing such application. 17. Hon'ble Apex Court, by taking note of facts in that case and while rejecting application under Section 7 of I.B. Code, further held that: 33. Apart from the above and even if it be assumed that the principles relating to acknowledgement as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act are applicable for extension of time for the purpose of the application under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
