TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denied by the Corporate Debtor therein. Even after the Corporate Debtor mentioned about reconciliation of accounts in their email, the Operational Creditor again sent an email on 19.05.2018 seeking a confirmation reply from the Corporate Debtor with regard to the outstanding balance payable to them towards services rendered - The email was again followed up a day later on 20.06.2018 by the Operational Creditor seeking release of outstanding payment and the schedule of payment as is placed at page 114 of APB. This shows that the Operational Creditor had been consistently pressing for release of their outstanding amount while there is nothing on record to show that the Corporate Debtor objected to the claims raised by the Operational Creditor or disputed the issue of outstanding payment raised by the Operational Creditor. There are no material having been placed on record to show that the Corporate Debtor had claimed an amount of Rs.7,71,434/- as receivable from the Operational Creditor prior to the issue of demand notice. The existence of debt, due and payable, has not been controverted by the Corporate Debtor in the emails exchanged by them with the Operational Creditor. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 8 of IBC on 08.05.2019 on the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor had replied to the demand notice on 23.05.2019. As the payment remained outstanding, the Respondent No.1 filed a Section 9 application on 11.02.2020. The Adjudicating Authority having considered the matter passed the impugned order admitting the Section 9 application against which the present appeal has been preferred. 3. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Corporate Debtor had denied the demand raised by the Operational Creditor in their reply to the Section 8 demand notice. Further the debt is barred by limitation because the outstanding amount claimed in the demand notice is outstanding since 22.01.2017. It was also contended that the Adjudicating Authority committed the error of relying solely on the email dated 22.01.2018 to hold that the Corporate Debtor had admitted the debt without taking cognizance of the email dated 22.03.2018 wherein it was stated by the Corporate Debtor that the account was under reconciliation. It was also added that the Operational Creditor had not submitted statement of account of the relevant period in support of their contention of ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al debt without specifying the date when the debt had become due and payable which was a pre-requisite for maintainability of a Section 9 application. 7. On the issue whether the petition is barred by limitation, the Adjudicating Authority has recorded its findings in the negative by giving the following reasoning in the impugned order which is to the effect: 7. The contention of the Corporate Debtor that the present petition is barred by limitation does not suffice as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v Bishal Jaiswal (2021) 6 SCC 366, held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which extends the period of limitation depending upon an acknowledgement of debt made in writing and signed by the Corporate Debtor, is applicable to proceedings under the IBC. The Supreme Court further held that entries in the Balance Sheet would amount to acknowledgment of debt for the purpose of extension of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In the present case, the Corporate Debtor has acknowledged the debt in the E-mail dated 22.01.2018, thereby giving a fresh lease of limitation. Therefore, the present petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings on pre-existing disputes have been recorded in the negative by the Adjudicating Authority as reproduced below: 6. The Corporate Debtor has stated in his reply that there were pre-existing disputes between the parties and he has also contended that the petition is barred by Limitation. The disputes w.r.t the quality of work were raised by the Corporate Debtor in its emails sent in the year 2017. However, in the e-mail dated 22.01.2018, the Corporate Debtor has acknowledged the debt. The Corporate Debtor while acknowledging the debt in the said e-mail has nowhere mentioned about the existence of any disputes between the parties. The e-mail dated 22.01.2018 clearly acknowledges the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,10,05,215 due as on 22.01.2017. 7 .. 8. In the light of the above said facts and after giving careful consideration to the entire matter, hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the Operational Creditor as well as the Learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor and upon appreciation of the documents placed on record to substantiate their respective claims, this Adjudicating Authority is of the view that there is an operational debt which is due from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is as follows: - On 22 March 2018 at 18:00, Jayant Jain sdol@thegrandnewdelhi com wrote Dear Mr Batra, We respect your decision of not renewing the contract with Grand anymore. We are in the process of reconciliation of accounts and once it is completed will let you know the suitable payment plan, and the date for the removal of the material. Regards The wordings of the above email do not show that the Corporate Debtor had denied or disputed the existence of outstanding debt qua the Operational Creditor. All that can be inferred from a plain reading of this letter is that they were in the process of reconciliation of accounts on completion of which they were to determine the payment plan. By no stretch of extrapolation can it be concluded that any dispute qua the debt was raised in the said email or the payment was denied by the Corporate Debtor therein. 14. Even after the Corporate Debtor mentioned about reconciliation of accounts in their email, the Operational Creditor again sent an email on 19.05.2018 seeking a confirmation reply from the Corporate Debtor with regard to the outstanding balance payable to them towards services rendered. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
