TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t payment on 27.09.2017, during the currency of the period of limitation and thus the period of limitation has further extended for the period of three years from the said date. Moreover, it is argued by Counsel for Respondent that Section 19 of the Limitation Act. 1963 talks of the effect of the payment on account of debt when acknowledged is in writing and signed. The Appellant has miserably failed to prove that the amount of Rs. 10 Lakh, reflected in the ledger account was paid by the Respondent towards the part payment of the amount due (in question) in order to extend the period of limitation of three years from the said date i.e. 27.09.2017 specially in the absence of the evidence of any writing in this regard or otherwise an admis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short Code ) r/w Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rule, 2016 (in short Rules ) against the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) in respect of an amount of Rs. 1,72,93,199/- was dismissed primarily on the ground of limitation and also raised doubt about the existence of the outstanding debt and default. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case set up by the Appellant is that the Respondent availed a sum of Rs. 98 Lakhs as Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) from the Appellant orally and undertook to pay it on demand with interest @ 12% per annum. Accordingly, on 28.01.2015, the Appellant disbursed loan to the Respondent through RTGS, which is allegedly reflected in the ledger o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on the amount of interest with the Department of Income Tax for the year ended on 31.03.2015, 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017 reflected in Form 26AS. However, the Adjudicating Authority found that neither interest was paid by the Respondent w.e.f. 01.04.2016 onwards nor the principal amount and the application filed on 27.01.2020 was barred by limitation as it has to be filed within the period of three years from the date of default. 4. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the very fact that TDS has been paid by the Respondent in terms of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is shown by the Appellant in Form 26AS, has to be considered as part of payment much less the acknowledgment. But at the same time, he has admitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is regard, reference has been made to Para 6 of the averments made in the application filed under Section 7. 9. In answer, Counsel for Respondent has submitted that no case has been set up by the Appellant in the pleadings that Rs. 10 Lakh was paid towards the part payment of amount in question because of which the period of limitation has again started to run. In this regard, he has relied upon the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. Anr., (2020) 15 SCC 1 and Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs. Bishal Jaiswal Anr., (2021) 6 SCC 366 to contend that the question of limitation is essentially a mixed question of law and facts and when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his regard or otherwise an admission of the Respondent who has categorically denied the same in its reply. The Appellant has specifically pleaded about the application having been filed within the period of limitation in Para 8 of the application in which there is no averments in regard to the part payment of Rs. 10 Lakh having been made by the Respondent towards the amount in question. Therefore, second contention of the Appellant in respect of extension of period of limitation is hereby rejected. 12. The last contention of the Appellant is about the acknowledgement of the debt in the balance sheet of the Respondent. In this regard, he has categorically admitted that the balance sheet as such is not on record rather he has relied upon a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within that period when the application would have been within the period of limitation because the same is not unequivocal. 14. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Appellant cannot take the advantage of the note for the purpose of brining the application filed under Section 7 within the period of limitation. The contention of the Appellant in this regard as well is hereby rejected. 15. Since, all the contentions of the Appellant have been rejected, having not been found reliable in accordance with law for the purpose of extension of period of limitation, therefore, it is hereby held that the application filed under Section 7 by the Appellant was barred by limitation and has rightly been dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
