TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Part IV - Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the DRT Consent Terms dated 26.09.2022 and observed that fresh period of limitation shall start, hence the objection on the ground of limitation have no merit. In so far as Consent Terms dated 26.09.2022 and fresh period of limitation thereafter, they have no relevance in the present application which was filed in the year 2021. However, the later part of the order where Letter of Acceptance dated 24.04.2019 has been noted is relevant for the purpose of limitation - The Letter of Acceptance is in the nature of agreement which is signed by all parties and amounts to fresh agreement between the parties. This fresh agreement acknowledges the debt of Rs.106,97,76,398.83/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal has been filed against order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench-IV by which order Section 7 application filed by the Respondent No.1 Financial Creditor has been admitted. The Appellant, Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor aggrieved by the admission has come up in this Appeal. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding this Appeal are: i. A consortium of Bank extended various financial facility to the Corporate Debtor in the year 2002. ii. The account of Corporate Debtor was declared NPA by Bank of India on 31.03.2015. iii. On 16.09.2016, Bank of India issued Recall Notice to the Appellant recalling monies payable by the Corporate Debtor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant prays that Appeal be taken after two weeks to enable the Respondent to consider the proposal. As prayed, list this Appeal on 22nd March, 2023. In the meantime, in pursuance of the order impugned, Committee of Creditors shall not be constituted. 4. Matter was again adjourned on 22.02.2023 noticing that proposal of the Appellant is under consideration. Appellant took further opportunity on 19.04.2023 to make another endeavour to submit better offer. Subsequently, again on 25.05.2023 it was noted that proposal is under consideration, however, no settlement between the parties could take place. Learned counsel for the Appellant addressed his submission on 22.11.2023. 5. Shri Krishnendu Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Section 7 application was well within time. It is submitted that debt and default having been proved the Adjudicating Authority has rightly admitted Section 7 application. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. We may first notice the amount claimed and date of default as contained in Part IV of the Section 7 application. In Part IV Item No. No.2 following has been stated: 2. AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE DEFAULT OCCURRED (ATTACH THE WORKINGS FOR COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT AND DAYS OF DEFAULT IN TABULAR FORM) (ANNEXED AS ANNEUXRE-2) Cash Credit Facility 1. Outstanding Amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the DRT Consent Terms dated 26.09.2022 and observed that fresh period of limitation shall start, hence the objection on the ground of limitation have no merit. Para 13 of the impugned order is as follows: 13. In view of the Consent Terms and the Order of DRT Mumbai dated 26.09.2022, the fresh period of limitation will start and hence, the present application is not barred by limitation. Nonetheless, a sum of Rs.23,40,63,483/- is claimed to be outstanding under inland bill purchase account facility and is stated to in default since 31.03.2019 as per Part-IV of the Petition. Also, the Corporate Debtor has acknowledged its liability in respect of all three Credit Facilities vide L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. Kew Precision Parts (P) Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 364 in Paras 30 and 31 has laid down following: 30. In this appeal, it is contended that the last offer of 20-12-2018 was followed by an agreement. Whether there was such agreement or not would have to be considered by the adjudicating authority. To invoke Section 25(3), the following conditions must be satisfied: 30.1. It must refer to a debt, which the creditor, but for the period of limitation, might have enforced. 30.2. There must be a distinct promise to pay such debt, fully or in part. 30.3. The promise must be in writing, and signed by the debtor or his duly appointed agent. 31. Under Section 25(3), a deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
