9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the 'National Company Law Tribunal', Kochi Bench, Kochi in CP(IBC)/46/KOB/2022, M/s. Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd., a 'Shareholder' of the 'Corporate Debtor'/ 'M/s Green Gateway Leisure Ltd.', preferred this 'Appeal', challenging the 'Order of Admission', under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Code'). 2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the 'Corporate Debtor', is a 'Special Purpose Vehicle' ('SPV'), created for the purpose of operation of a 'Project Act BEKAL'. The 'Appellant', is a promoter of the 'Resort Project', and holds about 25% of the Share Capital. It is submitted that the Appellants have sufficient experience in Hospitality and Health Sector and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating Authority', to have exercised in this matter. 6. It is also brought to the notice of this 'Tribunal', that earlier on 15.10.2020, the 'Adjudicating Authority', had 'Ordered' for commencement of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process', in IBA/01/KOB/2022, against which, an 'Appeal', was preferred and this 'Tribunal', vide 'Order' dated 09.09.2021 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 993 of 2020, had set aside the 'Order', and advised the 'Parties', to settle the matter, which was challenged, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court vide 'Order' dated 29.11.2021, dismissed the 'Appeal', preferred by the 'Financial Creditor', as withdrawn. It is submitted that despite the time period given to the 'Appellant' herein, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which, the 'Respondent Bank', in that matter was at liberty to take appropriate steps. 9. At this juncture, this 'Tribunal', find it relevant to reproduce paras 42 and 43 of the 'Laxmi Pat Surana' Vs. 'Union Bank of India & Anr.', (2021) 8 SCC 481 Judgment: "42. Notably, the provisions of the Limitation Act have been made applicable to the proceedings under the Code, as far as may be applicable. For, Section 238-A predicates that the provisions of the Limitation Act shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or 'Appeal's before the 'Adjudicating Authority', NCLAT, the DRT or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. After enactment of Section 238-A IBC on 6-6- 2018, validity whereof has been upheld by this Court, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of three years therefrom including the fresh period of limitation due to (successive) acknowledgments, it is not possible to extricate them from the renewed limitation accruing due to the effect of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Section 18 of the Limitation Act gets attracted the moment acknowledgment in writing signed by the party against whom such right to initiate resolution process under Section 7 IBC ensures. Section 18 of the Limitation Act would come into play every time when the principal borrower and/or the corporate guarantor ('Corporate Debtor'), as the case may be, acknowledge their liability to pay the debt. Such acknowledgment, however, must be before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation including the fres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
