TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent to prohibited period i.e. of March 2021 and October, 2021. A complete reading of the Part IV indicates that claim in the application was both for the period which was covered under the prohibition under Section 10A as well as the period which was beyond the said period. The period of six months or such further period not extending one year from such date as referred to in Section 10A was period during which the protection was to be extended by the statute from initiation of CIRP under Section 7, 9 10 - there is no support to the submission from the Section 10A that the prohibition from initiation of CIRP was limited for six months or one year and after expiry of that period an application can be filed for period covered by Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 after the said notice under Section 8, application under Section 9 was filed claiming an amount of Rs. 5,59,81,925/-. 3. The application came for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority, Adjudicating Authority choose not to issue notice on the application and dismissed the application holding it to be barred under Section 10A. 4. A perusal of the materials brought on the record indicates that there was settlement agreement dated 24.07.2020 between the parties. It is submitted that in the settlement there was table prescribed for payment and the part IV gives the details of payments at page 79 80. 5. The payments from July 2020 to October, 2021 has been referred. It has been further stated that debt became payable has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period covered by Section 10A. 8. Referring to page 81 as extracted above it has been mentioned that default was claim to be occurred on 31.03.2021 as well as 21.10.2022 which dates were obviously beyond the period covered by Section 10A. 9. It is submitted that Adjudicating Authority ought to have examined the matter and at least could have proceeded to consider the application for the period which was not covered under Section 10A. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also sought to contend that under Section 10A the embargo was only limited for period of one year and after one year the appellant was entitled to file application even for the default which occurred during the prohibited period, since the default was continuing de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application was both for the period which was covered under the prohibition under Section 10A as well as the period which was beyond the said period. 14. Now coming to the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the embargo for initiation of application under Section 7 9 was only for period of one year. The reliance has been placed on the judgment of Ramesh Kymal Vs. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. paragraph 27 28 has been referred which are as follows: 27. Adopting the construction which has been suggested by the Appellant would defeat the object and intent underlying the insertion of Section 10-A. The onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic is a cataclysmic event which has serious repercussions on the financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application was filed before 5-6-2020. 15. The aforesaid Judgment had occasion to consider the expression shall ever be filed and the submission which was made by Learned Counsel for the Appellant on Section 10A was expressly rejected by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 16. The submission which was made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant before the Supreme Court has been captured in the paragraph 13 14 of the Judgment which is to the following effect: 13. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul submits that: 13.1. Section 10-A creates a bar to the filing of applications under Sections 7,9 and 10 in relation to defaults committed on or after 25-3-2020 for a period of six months, which can be extended up to one year. 13.2. The O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 17. The period of six months or such further period not extending one year from such date as referred to in Section 10A was period during which the protection was to be extended by the statute from initiation of CIRP under Section 7, 9 10. 18. There is no support to the submission from the Section 10A that the prohibition from initiation of CIRP was limited for six months or one year and after expiry of that period an application can be filed for period covered by Section 10A also. The use of the expression in the proviso that no application shall ever be filed is clearly clarificatory of legislative intendment as contained in Section 10A. 19. If, we accept the submission of the appellant that the provision shall come to end ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
