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

Must Read

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the...

Follow us

The appeal was filed by the appellant 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 CR 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 the 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 clause 1 of the agreement, it was clearly stated that until the agreement 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.  

The Decision of NCLT

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. Hence, the application was accepted u/s 7 of IBC. 

Arguments before NCLAT

Appellant

  1. The date of default was 31st December 2007 and the application was filed 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 shall 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 and the same was done by the appellant 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 acknowledgment of lithe ability has been given in writing then the limitation period gets extended.” 

Court’s Analysis

  • It was accepted by the appellant as well as the respondent 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 default started from 31st December 2007 and continued till 20th May 2014.  
  • The case of B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. vs Parag Gupta & Associates was cited 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 impugned order was set aside.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & 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

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

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...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -