SC: CIRP Application Filed Beyond 3 Years From the Date of Default Is Barred by Time

Must Read

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

Follow us

A Division Bench of the Apex Court rejected an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), as barred by limitation. It annulled the Orders of NCLAT and NCT for erroneous reasoning applied and reiterated that the limitation for CIRP application is three years from the date of default.

Background

An Appeal filed before the Apex Court was under Section 62 of the IBC, 2016 against the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention that the application made by the appellant Shri Babulal Vardhaji Gurjar seeking initiation of CIRP as barred by limitation. The said application filed before the Adjudicating Authority was by the Respondent JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 in the capacity of a financial creditor of the Respondent company i.e. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. 

Reasoning adopted by the Appellate Tribunal in Impugned Order

The Appellate Tribunal in its Order dated 14.05.2019 observed that: 

a) The Code has come into force on 01.12.2016, the application made in the year 2018 was within limitation.

b) The mortgage security provided by the corporate debtor, the limitation period of twelve years is available for the claim made by the financial creditor as per Article 61 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the application was within limitation.

Issue

The basic issue involved the determination of whether the application made by the respondent under Section 7 of the Code is within limitation. Further, whether the reasonings adopted by the Appellate Tribunal was appropriate while interpreting the relevant statutory provisions in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Limitation Act, 1963. 

Appellant’s Averments

The Appellant made the following contentions: 

a) The limitation period for an application under Section 7 of the Code is three years as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, where the date of alleged “default” is the starting point of limitation. In the present case, such date of default was specifically mentioned as 08.07.2011. Therefore, the application filed by the Respondent in March 2018 seems barred by limitation. 

b) The Appellant highlighted various SC judgments that have analyzed the applicability of the Limitation Act to the applications of winding up transferred to NCLT and has held that enforcement of IBC in 2016 will not give a new life to the time-barred debts; and if the filing of the application is beyond three years from the date of default, then the same will be time-barred. 

Respondent’s Averments

The Respondent made the following contentions : 

a) The liability about the debt in question had been consistently acknowledged by the corporate debtor in its balance sheets and annual reports. The debt is shown as the loan amount outstanding to Corporation Bank. Therefore, a fresh period of limitation is available from the date of every such acknowledgement and hence, the application is within time. 

b) The Respondent pointed out the law declared by SC, wherein the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act certainly extend the period of limitation under the Code on any acknowledgement of the debt by the corporate debtor. 

Appellant’s Rebuttal

The Appellant, however, emphasized the following: 

a) Section 18 of the Limitation Act could revive limitation in some cases but not for every remedy which is separate and distinct. 

b) When limitation period of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, about the application under Section 7 of the Code, starts from the date of default, acknowledgement of the debt in the balance sheet will not give any fresh date of default because default occurs only once and cannot be continuing. 

Court’s Decision

The Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari heard the matter. The Court reaffirmed the position that the right to sue under IBC accrues on the date when default occurs. If the default had occurred three years before the date of filing of the application, the same would not amount to the debt due and payable under the Code. The application made by the Respondent under Section 7 of the Code in March 2018 was clearly barred by limitation. The filing was much later than the period of three years from the date of default as stated in the application. The attempt on the part of the Respondents to save the limitation about the principles of acknowledgement was unsustainable. 

Further, the SC observed that NCLAT decided the question of limitation on entirely irrelevant considerations. The Impugned Orders were set aside and the application by the Respondent rejected, as barred by limitation.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

Plea Seeks FIR Against Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde in Bombay HC for False Info

A plea has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking an FIR against Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Munde who is undergoing times of trouble due to his extra-marital affair. Recently, an FIR had been lodged against Munde by a woman, accusing him of raping her sister. Munde clarified that he was actually in a relationship with that woman and had two children. He accused the two women of blackmailing him.

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -