TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t squarely falls under acknowledgment of debt as provided for under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon ble Supreme Court in LAXMI PAT SURANA VERSUS UNION BANK OF INDIA ANR. [ 2021 (3) TMI 1179 - SUPREME COURT] and in DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) VERSUS C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR. [ 2021 (8) TMI 315 - SUPREME COURT] has held that if the debt is reflected in the Balance Sheet/ Financial Statements of the Corporate Debtor Company, it is to be construed as acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the Appellants had disbursed the last tranche of the loan on 28.03.2017 and on 29.03.2017 respectively and have filed the Section 7 Application in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cr. On 10.10.2014, the Second Appellant disbursed the first tranche of the unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs vide RTGS to the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor Company. The First Appellant disbursed the tranche of unsecured loan of Rs. 13,00,000/- on 29.10.2014 to the Corporate Debtor . It is submitted by the Learned Counsel that the last tranche was disbursed by the First Appellant vide RTGS on 28.03.2017 for an amount of Rs. 85,00,000/-. On 29.03.2017 the Second Appellant had disbursed the last tranche for an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/-. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor Company defaulted on the terms of the Loan Agreement and reminders were sent on 03.03.2020 and on 27.01.2021. Thereafter the Section 7 Application was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waited a year to issue a recall Notice on 27.01.2021 despite receiving no repayment from the Respondent since 28.04.2017. 9. The Respondent Counsel submitted that on the very same day of receipt of the recall Notice i.e., on 27.01.2021, the Respondent had replied stating that the said amount had already been re-paid in parts over a period of time and that no amount remains payable any more. 10. Learned Counsel for the Respondent placed reliance on the Judgement of Hon ble Delhi High Court (also referred to in the Impugned Order) in the matter of Utility Power Tech Limited Vs. Amit Traders, RFA No. 551/2015 decided on 15.05.2018 wherein it is held as follows: 22. In view of the aforesaid findings, agreeing with the decisions afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent had failed to repay the loan amount, since the first part payment was made on 28.04.2017, the fact that the recall Notice was sent on 27.01.2021 i.e., after 3 years and 9 months, clearly shows that the Petition was barred by Limitation . Assessment : 12. The brief point which falls for consideration in this Appeal is whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in dismissing the Application filed under Section 7 of the Code, as barred by Limitation . 13. At the outset, it is observed that the Adjudicating Authority had placed reliance on the Judgement of this Tribunal in V. Padmakumar vs. Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (referred supra) passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 57 of 2020 which was set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a petition in the NCLT is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act unlike delay in filing a suit. Furthermore, as observed above Sections 14 and 18 of the Limitation Act are also applicable to proceedings under the IBC. 139. Section 18 of the Limitation Act cannot also be construed with pedantic rigidity in relation to proceedings under the IBC. This Court sees no reason why an offer of one-time settlement of a live claim, made within the period of Limitation, should not also be construed as an acknowledgment g to attract Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave cited by Mr Shivshankar, this Court had no occasion to consider any proposal for one-time settlement. Be that as it may, the Balance Sheets and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
