Debt Acknowledged After Expiry of Limitation Period Cannot Initiate the Proceedings Under CIRP: NCLAT

Must Read

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Follow us

The appellant filed the appeal against the order dated 11th December 2019 passed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai wherein the adjudicating authority accepted the Insolvency Application u/s 7 of IBC. The appellant here was C.R. Badrinath, and the respondents were Eight Capital India (M) Ltd. and M/s Wellknit Apparels Private Limited. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) overturned the decision of NCLT stating that debt acknowledged after limitation period expiry cannot initiate CIRP. 

Facts of the Case

The applicant herein is a debenture holder through master facility agreement and debenture subscription agreement which was entered on 21st May 2007. According to this agreement, a sum of Rs 15 crores was given to respondent no 2, and the respondent no 1 company subscribed to two series of fully convertible debentures with each of it for 84 months. According to the clause 1 of the agreement, it was clearly stated that until the deal subsides and the date on which fully convertible debentures are converted into equity, the fully convertible debentures would earn interest quarterly @12% p.a. and 6% p.a. in case of any default or delay in payment. There were defaults by the appellant in the payment of interest.  

NCLT’s Order

Considering the definition of Financial Debt u/s 5(8) of IBC, the tribunal observed that any amount raised according to the issuance of debentures falls within the definition of Financial Debt. So, the principal, as well as the interest amount, would be paid by the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor had also acknowledged the applicant as “Debenture Holder” in the balance sheet for the Financial Sheet for the year 2016-17 and hence establishes a financial debt is due to the financial creditor. Thus, the NCLT accepted the application u/s 7 of IBC. 

Arguments before NCLAT 

Appellant

  1. The date of default was 31st December 2007, and the applicant applied on 26th February 2019, which is more than 11 years. Hence, the period of limitation started on 31st December 2007. 
  2. It was stated by the appellant that even if the respondent’s contention is accepted and the amount became due on 20th May 2014. The application was still time-barred since it was filed on 26th February 2019, which was after 4 years and 9 months. 
  3. The appellant also relied on section 3 of the limitation act, which clearly stated that application after the prescribed period should be dismissed, even if the limitation has not been contended by the respondent. 

Respondent

  1. Bar of limitation cannot be invoked if the corporate debtor acknowledged the o/s debt in writing by entering into the memorandum of agreement the appellant did the same on 18th April 2017.
  2. For the above argument, the respondents also cited the case of Food Corporation of India vs Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Limited as the court stated that “if an acknowledgement of liability has been given in writing then the limitation period gets extended.” 

Court’s Analysis

  • Both the appellant and the respondent accepted that the consequence of default was the entire amount which became due and was immediately payable. Hence, the limitation period began on 31st December 2007. 
  • In the entire duration, only the amount paid was Rs 39,86,371, and that was for the quarter ending 31st September 2007. The corporate debtor defaulted on the payment of interest till the time stipulated in the agreement, i.e. 20th May 2014. Therefore, the defaulted started from 31st December 2007 and continued till 20th May 2014. 
  • The court reiterated the principle in the case of B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. vs Parag Gupta & Associates as it stated that “If the default has occurred over 3 years before the date of filing of the application, the application would be barred by the under Article 137 of the limitation act.” In the case also, the application is barred by Article 137 of the limitation act. 

Court’s Decision

The appellate tribunal stated that NCLT had erred by admitting the application under section 7 of IBC. Therefore, the appeal succeeded, and the court set aside the impugned order. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can 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

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -