TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of dues. There is no reason to accept the plea of Learned Counsel for the appellant that the initiation of CIRP was barred by limitation. The question regarding acknowledgement has already been set at rest by three Judges Bench of Hon ble Supreme Court in ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS BISHAL JAISWAL ANR. [ 2021 (4) TMI 753 - SUPREME COURT ]. Whatever points have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the present case, is squarely covered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bishal Jaiswal case. As per judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in a proceeding under the IBC, provisions of Limitation Act is applicable though Section 238A was inserted in the IBC w.e.f. 6.6.2018. It has been clarified by the Hon ble Supreme Court that it was clarificatory in nature and it was having retrospective effect. The application under Section 7 of the Code was filed by the Financial Creditor within the period of limitation. The appellant has never raised any dispute on the question of debt i.e. recoverable amount nor a dispute has been raised regarding endorsement in the balance sheet or offer of OTS. In such view of the matter there is no reason to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cast Credit A/c No.05464008701738041 35,01,06,230.47 68,26,31,758.38 32,09,10,740.11 9,25,60,238.43 1,44,62,08,967.39 2 Term Loan (Car Loan) A/c No. 056400NG00053639 20,96,656.00 18,76,404.40 - 3,19,387.98 42,92,448.38 3 Term Loan (Car Loan) A/c No.056400NG00053648 22,47,802.00 16,41,305.28 (3,95,170.00) 2,79,371.11 37,73,308.39 Grand Total 35,44,50,688.00 68,61,49,468.06 32,05,15,030.11 9,31,58,997.52 1,45,42,74,724.16 3. As per application filed under Section 7 of the Code date of declaring account of the Corporate Debtor as Non-Performing Assets (hereinafter referred to as NPA ) was shown as 30.09.2013. At the time of availing various credit facilities on 17.02.2012 a deed of guarantee was exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted by the Financial Creditor. The Learned Adjudicating Authority after considering the facts disclosed in the application filed under Section 7, reply affidavit filed by the Corporate Debtor and also affidavit in rejoinder, finally decided that it was not barred by limitation and by order dated 26.05.2020 admitted the application and CIRP proceeding was initiated. 6. Aggrieved with the impugned order the Corporate Debtor has preferred the present appeal which was registered as Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.24/2021 on 20.01.2021. While directing issuance of Notice to Respondent No.1 and considering the facts disclosed in IA No.62/2021 wherein it was stated that Committee of Creditors was already constituted, a Bench of this Tribunal directed that the CIRP may continue but the Adjudicating Authority shall not take any decision in regard to approval of the Resolution Plan till next date of hearing. After appearance of all the parties and completion of pleading, the appeal was finally heard on 22.07.2022 and Judgement was reserved. 7. Mr. Varun Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailing the impugned order has taken a stand that the Adjudicating Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant has brought on record two judgement passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India one reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 543 Dena Bank (Bank of Baroda) Vs C Shivakumar Reddy anr and Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd Vs Bishal Jaiswal and Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 321. In the written submission dated 25.03.2021 and dated 29.10.2021 of the appellant the following facts have been stated:- Written submission dated 25.03.2021 1.The Application u/S. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( Code ) filed by Respondent No. 1 is barred by limitation as:- a.It is undisputed that the Application was filed on 10.06.2019 and the date of NPA and date of default is shown as 30.09.2013. In the said Application there was no mention of any OTS proposal or acknowledgement of debt. The Application was filed after more than 3 years from default and/or declaration of NPA and is filed beyond the period prescribed in Article 137 of the Limitation Act. b.The Corporate Debtor filed its reply to the Application and took the ground of limitation. c.Respondent No. 1 developed its case in the Rejoinder where it mentioned the dates about the acknowledgement of debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermination of default . (Also observed in Babulal Vardharji (Supra) at para 20.3.2) 6.In B.K. Educational Services Private Limited Vs. Parag Gupta And Associates [(2019) 11 Supreme Court Cases 633] held that the Code does not give a new lease of life to debts which are time barred. Furthermore, it was held that the Limitation Act is applicable to the applications filed under the Code and Article 137 of the Limitation Act is applicable to such applications. It was held that the right to sue accrues when default occurs . If the default occurs over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act unless S. 5 of the Limitation Act is applied to condone the delay in filing such application. (Observed in Babulal Vardharji (Supra) para 24, pg. 40 and 24.1, pg 41). 7.In K. Sashidhar Vs Indian Overseas Bank and Others [(2019) 12 Supreme Court Cases 150, para 78] it is held that right to sue accrues on the date when default occurs and if the default occurred even three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the same cannot be treated as debt that is due and payable or debt due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 7 of the Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and is, therefore, three years from the date when right to apply accrues; (e) that the trigger for initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor is default on the part of the corporate debtor, that is to say, that the right to apply under the Code accrues on the date when default occurs; (f) that default referred to in the Code is that of actual non-payment by the corporate debtor when a debt has become due and payable; and (g) that if default had occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be time-barred save and except in those cases where, on facts, the delay in filing may be condoned; and (h) an application under Section 7 of the Code is not for enforcement of mortgage liability and Article 62 of the Limitation Act does not apply to this application. Emphasis supplied 11.The exception as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babulal Vardharji (Supra) in aforesaid sub-para h of para 32 does not apply in the present case as no application for condonation of delay in filing application u/S. 7 of the Code was filed by Financial Credito ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Code. Written submission dated 29.10.2021 1.It is undisputed that Application u/S. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( Code ) was filed by Respondent No. 1 on 10.06.2019 and the date of NPA and date of default is shown as 30.09.2013 of the impugned order -. In the said Application, either in Part-IV or Part V thereof or anywhere else, there was no mention of any OTS proposal or acknowledgement of debt. Furthermore, there is no mention of any document which goes to show any acknowledgement of debt by the Corporate Debtor. The Application was filed after more than 3 years from default and/or declaration of NPA and is filed beyond the period prescribed in Article 137 of the Limitation Act. 2. It is also matter of fact that apart from 30.09.2013 there is no other date of default is mentioned in the Application. Therefore, the said Application as it was presented before the Adjudicating Authority ought to be rejected on the threshold being barred by limitation. 1.The Corporate Debtor filed its reply to the Application and took the ground of limitation. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 developed its case in the Rejoinder where it mentioned the dates abou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof were applicable, the same would not apply to the application under consideration in the present case, looking to the very averment regarding default therein and for want of any other averment in regard to acknowledgement. (Emphasis supplied) 6.Therefore, the law laid down in Babulal Vardharji (Supra) applies to the present case and no benefit of S. 18 could be given to the Financial Creditor/Respondent No.1. 7.The aforesaid view held in Babulal Vardharji (Supra) is also further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Dena 2 Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) VS C Shivakumar Reddy Anr. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 543 in paras 53, 54, 106-108, 111, 134 144]. In the Dena Bank (Supra), the Supreme Court allowed the Application u/S. 7 of a Financial Creditor as an amendment to the said Application was incorporated before the passing of the final order by Adjudicating Authority. Dena Bank (Supra) also held that the Application u/S. 7 could be amended before the passing of the final order by Adjudicating Authority. 8.It is submitted that the pleadings in the Application u/S. 7 qua the acknowledgment of debt are indispensable to take benefit of S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993. . 10. He has also referred to para 17 of the same judgement i.e. Babulal Vardharji Gurjar (Supra) which is as follows:- 17. In distillation of what has been noticed hereinabove, it is apparent that while not disputing the basics on the applicability of law of limitation to the application in question, the main plank of submissions of the learned counsel for respondents has been that the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, providing for extension of the period of limitation upon making of acknowledgment by the party against whom a right is claimed, is not taken away and, for such acknowledgments (of liability) having been consistently and continuously made in the balance sheets and annual reports by the corporate debtor as also in its offer for OTS, the fresh period of limitation would be available from the date of every such acknowledgment. Hence, with heavy reliance on the principles relating to acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the learned counsel for the respondents would assert that the application in question is not barred by limitation. On the other hand, the gravamen of submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any acknowledgment of debt. Such averments were duly incorporated by way of amendment, and the Adjudicating Authority rightly looked into the amended pleadings. xxxx 144. There is no bar in law to the amendment of pleadings in an application under Section 7 of the IBC, or to the filing of additional documents, apart from those initially filed along with application under Section 7 of the IBC in Form-1. In the absence of any express provision which either prohibits or sets a time limit for filing of additional documents, it cannot be said that the Adjudicating Authority committed any illegality or error in permitting the Appellant Bank to file additional documents. Needless however, to mention that depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is inordinate delay, the Adjudicating Authority might, at its discretion, decline the request of an applicant to file additional pleadings and/or documents, and proceed to pass a final order. In our considered view, the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to entertain and/or to allow the request of the Appellant Bank for the filing of additional documents with supporting pleadings, and to consider such docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he liability acknowledgement towards the financial creditor by the corporate debtor for the financial year 2014-15 and financial year 2015-16 which were submitted by the corporate debtor before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. 14 Thereafter the corporate debtor through its letter dated 23.02.2017 submitted a proposal for OTS of dues of Financial Creditor, IDBI Bank Ltd. Another such letter with the revised OTS was submitted on 15.09.2018. However, since it was not acceptable to the Financial Creditor the same was informed to the corporate debtor. Subsequent thereto on 22.10.2018 a joint lenders meeting was held to discuss the revised proposal. However, the revised proposal was rejected. 15. In SARFAESI proceeding secured immovable properties were sold between 27.12.2018 and 30.04.2019. Three secured assets, one immovable property at Charni Road and two cars were still available with the Financial Creditor against their claims but the claim was much greater than the value of those remaining secured assets. Learned Counsel for the Financial Creditor has also placed heavy reliance on a judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in Bishal Jaiswal (Supra). He submits that in view of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aharashtra. Therefore, this Bench has jurisdiction to deal with this petition. 3. The present petition was filed on 10.06.2019 before this Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment of a sum of ₹1,45,42,74,724.16 (Rupees one hundred and forty-five crore forty-two lakh seventy-four thousand seven hundred and twenty-four and paise sixteen only) as the total claim amount, comprising inter alia of a sum of ₹35,44,50,688.47 (Rupees thirty-five crore forty-four lakh fifty thousand six hundred and eighty-eight and paise forty seven only) as principal, ₹68,61,49,468.06 (Rupees sixty eight crore sixty-one lakh forty-nine thousand four hundred and sixtyeight and paise six only) as interest and ₹9,31,58,997.52 (Rupees nine crore thirty-one lakh fifty-eight thousand nine hundred and ninetyseven and paise fifty-two only) as penal interest at the rate of 2% p.a., as stated at pp.7-8 of the Petition. The date of default is 30.09.2013, as stated at p.7 of the petition. 4. The Financial Creditor has granted various credit facilities to the Corporate Debtor aggregating to an amount of ₹37,67,28,000/- (Rupees thirty-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is placed as Exhibit E at pp 67-107. The Term Loan Agreement dated 17.02.2012 sanctioned by the Financial Creditor individually is placed as Exhibit D at pp.36-66 of the petition. The undertakings dated 12.01.2012 and 17.02.2012 for the above credit facilities availed by the Corporate Debtor are placed as Exhibit F (Colly) at pp.108-114. Further an Inter Se Agreement between the Financial Creditor and IDBI Bank Limited was executed on 17.02.2012 and the same is placed as Exhibit G at pp.115-134. ii) A Deed of Guarantee dated 17.02.2012 between Mr. Dinesh G. Jaiswal, director of Corporate Debtor, Ms. Sunita D. Jaiswal, wife of director of the Corporate Debtor, as Personal Guarantors, D.J. Exim (India) Private Limited as Corporate Guarantor in favour of Punjab National Bank (Lead Bank of the Consortium) is placed as Exhibit I at pp.137-153 of the petition. Further a Deed of Guarantee dated 17.02.2012 between Mr. Dinesh G. Jaiswal, director of Corporate Debtor, Ms. Sunita D. Jaiswal, wife of director of the Corporate Debtor, as Personal Guarantors, D.J. Exim (India) Private Limited as Corporate Guarantor in favour of Punjab National Bank as security for the Term Loan is place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.2019 is also attached to the petition stating the credit facilities taken by the Corporate debtor as Exhibit U at pp.444- 455. x) Further statement of accounts along with Certificate under section 2A of Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 is placed as Exhibit V (Colly) at pp.456-482F. xi) Further, in pursuance of the action initiated by the Financial Creditor under the SARFAESI Act, secured immovable properties were sold between 27.12.2018 and 30.04.2019. Sale Certificates regarding the same are placed as Exhibit Y (Colly) at pp.490-494. 6. In its reply dated 17.09.2019, the Corporate Debtor has set up the following defence: a) The present Petition is barred by the law of limitation. The cause of action arose on 30.09.2013, the day on which the Corporate Debtor was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The present petition was filed on 10.06.2019, hence the petition is time barred. b) Further the Financial Creditor initiated a recovery action under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 by notice dated 25.10.2013. Pursuant to the initiation of action the Financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted a proposal for one time settlement of dues of the Financial Creditor, IDBI Bank Limited and Bank of India. Another letter regarding the same with a revised one time settlement value was submitted on 15.09.2018 (Exhibit C pp. 106-108 and Exhibit E pp. 110-113 of the rejoinder) e) The Financial Creditor as a consortium leader informed the Corporate Debtor that the one time settlement was not acceptable by any party to the consortium. (Exhibit D p. 109 of the rejoinder). Further a Joint Lenders Meeting was held on 22.10.2018 to discuss about the revised proposal. Minutes of meeting rejecting the revised offer is placed as Exhibit F at pp. 114-116 of the rejoinder. f) Further in pursuance of the action initiated by the Financial Creditor under the SARFAESI Act, secured immovable properties were sold between 27.12.2018 and 30.04.2019. Three secured assets, one immovable property at Charni Road and two cars are still available with the Financial Creditor against their claims but the claim amount is much greater than the value of these remaining secured assets. Findings: 8. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. 9. The objection of the Ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition . 13. The Corporate Debtor further relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sagar Sharma Anr vs Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. Anr (2019) 10 SCC 353 which reiterated the same principle. 14. There is no quarrel with reference to the applicability of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings. In considering this aspect, the defences raised by the Corporate Debtor are answered as follows:- On the matter of default not being a continuing wrong. 15. The Corporate Debtor submits a default cannot be regarded as continuing wrong so as to invite the application of section 23 of the Limitation Act. 16. The Corporate Debtor has relied on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashdeo R Bhojwani V. Abhudaya Cooperative Bank Ltd anr 79(IBC)10/2019 (Exhibit B pp. 61-63 of the reply) by which it was clarified that a default cannot be regarded as a continuing wrong in para 4 as follows: 4. .. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lates or on 26.3.1997 when it was signed. This assumes significance since the suit for money was filed on 3.1.2000 which is well beyond three years from 31.3.1995 though within three years from 26.3.1997. The period of limitation for filing a suit of the nature is three years from the acknowledgment and there is a cleavage in judicial opinion as to from which date the period will run 8. *** 9. Will not the signing of the balance sheet and the profit and loss account at best be an acknowledgment made by a director of a debt due to himself is the further question posed by the defendant. Reliance is placed on P. S. Thirumalai Iyengar v. Official Liquidator [AIR 1962 Madras 253(DB)] and A. C. K. Krishnaswami v. M/s. Stressed Concrete Constructions Pvt. Ltd. [AIR 1964 Madras 191]. But the precise question has been answered in Re Gee Co's case (supra) as follows: 'It seems to me plain that an acknowledgment signed by the directors in relation to their own debt would be fully effective if sanctioned by every member of the company............The general meeting of the company at which the accounts were adopted and the state of the Eccles account confirmed was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment of liability within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, with attendant consequences. In the present case, there is acknowledgement in the balance sheet of the corporate debtor as at 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016, and therefore, a fresh period of limitation began to run from that date. Further, the judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court recognises the fact that in an appropriate case, the cause of action will be deemed to have accrued at the date of the balance-sheet, being the date to which the signature of the directors relates. In view of the above judgments, it appears to us that the date of signatures of the directors be construed as the date of effective acknowledgement of the state of indebtedness of the company. On the matter of Settlement Offers made: 23. The Financial Creditor has argued by relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Limited Vs Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. Ors 2018 SCC OnLine SC 237 which reads as follows: Letter of Undertaking Without Prejudice 35. Much was sought to be made of the words without prejudice in the letter containing the undertaking that if the debt was not paid, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. 25. The Financial Creditor has further submitted an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the case of Babulal Vardhaji Gurjar vs Veer Gurjar Aluminium Anr CP (IB)- 488/I BP/MB/2018 which reads as follows: 12. The Financial Creditor has also brought on record a letter dated 31st July 2018 issued by the appellant to the respondent - Financial Creditor for one-time settlement. The aforesaid fact shows that there is a continuous cause of action under Section 19 filed by the respondent - Financial Creditor which is pending before the DRT . 29. Part V (First Division) of Limitation Act relates to Suits relating to immovable property to recover possession of the property mortgaged and afterwards transferred by the mortgagee for a valuable consideration. The period of limitation is 12 years since the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff [Article 61(b)]. 30. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the property having mortgaged, we also hold that the claim is not barred by limitation as the period of limitation is 12 years with regard to mortgaged property and in terms of Section 5 (7) read with Section 5(8) as the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Process (CIRP) against J- Marks Exim (India) Private Limited [CIN: U51311MH2007PTC168736], the Corporate Debtor, is admitted. (b) There shall be a moratorium under section 14 of the IBC, regarding the following: (i) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (ii) Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (iii) Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002; (iv) The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in possession of the Corporate Debtor. (c) Notwithstanding the above, during the period of moratorium: (i) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor, if continuing, shall not be term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iately, and in any case, not later than two days from the date of this Order. (k) A copy of this Order be sent to the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai, for updating the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor. The said Registrar of Companies shall send a compliance report in this regard to the Registry of this Court within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. On going through the aforesaid order there is no dispute that the account of corporate debtor was declared NPA on 30.09.2013 . It is also not in dispute that balance sheet for the year 2014-15, 2015-16 showing acknowledgement was brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority. It is also not in dispute that on 16.4.2014 the corporate debtor had submitted balance cum security letter acknowledging the debt. The said balance sheet of 2014-2015 and 2015-16 were uploaded by the corporate debtor on the portal of MCA website. Thereafter on 23.02.2017 the corporate debtor vide its letter dated 23.02.2017 submitted proposal for settlement of dues. The said letter was submitted with an offer of an amount of Rs.20 crore in settlement of dues of all the three banks i.e. PNB, IDBI, Edelweiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdharji Gurjar. Suffice it to observe that this Court had not ruled out the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to the proceedings under the Code, if the fact situation of the case so warrants. Considering that the purport of Section 238A of the Code, as enacted, is clarificatory in nature and being a procedural law had been given retrospective effect; which included application of the provisions of the Limitation Act on case-to-case basis. Indeed, the purport of amendment in the Code was not to reopen or revive the time barred debts under the Limitation Act. At the same time, accrual of fresh period of limitation in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act is on its own under that Act. It will not be a case of giving new lease to time barred debts under the existing law (Limitation Act) as such. 42. Notably, the provisions of Limitation Act have been made applicable to the proceedings under the Code, as far as may be applicable. For, Section 238A predicates that the provisions of Limitation Act shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the NCLAT, the DRT or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final date for calculation of the limitation. If we consider the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act certainly if acknowledgement has been made within the period of three years from the date of declaring the account as NPA, the period of limitation shall be extended from the date of acknowledgement. In the present case the Financial Creditor has established that within the limitation period initially debt was acknowledged in 2014. Thereafter in view of acknowledgement made in balance sheet which has been obtained from the website of the MOCA which was for the year 2014-15 and 2015-16 the limitation was extended. Again when the appellant/corporate debtor approached the bank for OTS the date of limitation was further extended from the date of OTS and finally offer of OTS was given. On examination of the chain of events which we have elaborated hereinabove there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the petition under Section 7 was filed within the period of limitation or within extended period of limitation. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Bishal Jaiswal case has approved and reproduced law laid down in Laxmi Pat Surana case (Supra) which has been incorporated i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in para 16 and 17 of Bishal Jaiswal case (Supra) which is quoted hereinbelow:- 16. The next question that this Court must address is as to whether an entry made in a balance sheet of a corporate debtor would amount to an acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. 17. Several judgments of this Court have indicated that an entry made in the books of accounts, including the balance sheet, can amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Thus, in Mahabir Cold Storage v. CIT, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 402, this Court held: 12. The entries in the books of accounts of the appellant would amount to an acknowledgement of the liability to M/s Prayagchand Hanumanmal within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and extend the period of limitation for the discharge of the liability as debt. 22. In view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and facts which we have discussed hereinabove we are satisfied that the application under Section 7 of the Code was filed by the Financial Creditor within the period of limitation. The appellant has never raised any dispute on the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
