Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (5) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 7 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - acknowledgement of debt - HELD THAT - The amount of debt and default is not in dispute. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that such amount of debt due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor has is appearing in the financial statements for the year ended 31-3-2018. It is also not in dispute that in the Auditor's Report fact of default by Corporate Debtor in the payment of loan and interest has also been reported. The only plea which has been taken by the Corporate Debtor that such financial statements are for the period which is beyond 3 years from the date of declaration of the amount of corporate debt as NPA in 2013. -In our considered view, such plea stands on no legs for the simple reason that the default which has been shown in the balance sheet of financial year-ended 31-3-2018 is not running from March 2013 or earlier. Acknowledgement of debt - HELD THAT - The presentation in the balance sheet or auditor's report there to amounts to acknowledgement of debt by corporate debtor. This proposition is now more or less settled. The application filed by the Financial Creditor under section 7 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, namely R.P. Info Systems Ltd. is hereby admitted - moratorium is declared.
Issues Involved:
1. Precedence of law over Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and its impact on Section 7 proceedings. 2. Whether the debt is time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Acknowledgement of debt in financial statements and its implications under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. Competency of the person who signed and filed the application under Section 7 of IBC. 5. Declaration of moratorium and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Detailed Analysis: 1. Precedence of Law Over Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Its Impact on Section 7 Proceedings: The tribunal held that at the stage of admission under Section 7 of IBC, the primary conditions to be considered are whether there exists a debt that is due and payable and if a default has occurred. The attachment of assets by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) does not affect the admissibility of the petition. The tribunal rejected the contention of the corporate debtor that no resolution could be possible due to the attachment of assets by the ED, citing that such issues would be considered during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 2. Whether the Debt is Time-Barred Under the Limitation Act, 1963: The tribunal noted that the debt and default were not in dispute. The corporate debtor argued that the debt was time-barred as the Non-Performing Asset (NPA) was declared in 2013, and the financial statements showing the debt were from 2018, beyond the three-year limitation period. However, the tribunal held that the continuous appearance of the debt in financial statements constitutes a continuous acknowledgment of debt, thereby extending the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The tribunal cited various judicial decisions to support this view, including the cases of UCO Bank v. Kaizen Power Ltd. and Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/s Sri Balaji Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 3. Acknowledgement of Debt in Financial Statements and Its Implications Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The tribunal emphasized that the presentation of debt in financial statements or the auditor’s report amounts to an acknowledgment of debt by the corporate debtor. This acknowledgment extends the limitation period as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The tribunal extensively quoted from previous judgments to reinforce this point, including the cases of Trinetra Electronics Limited v. McNally Bharat Engineering Co. Limited and Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Dagcon (India) Private Limited. 4. Competency of the Person Who Signed and Filed the Application Under Section 7 of IBC: The tribunal found that the person who signed and filed the application under Section 7 of IBC was duly authorized. The tribunal referred to the Board Resolutions and other relevant documents that authorized the signatory to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The tribunal rejected the corporate debtor’s contention on this ground, citing the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Ramesh Chander Gupta. 5. Declaration of Moratorium and Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP): The tribunal declared a moratorium as per Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC, 2016, prohibiting certain actions against the corporate debtor, including the institution or continuation of suits, transferring or disposing of assets, and recovery of property. The tribunal appointed Ms. Ramanathan Bhuvaneswari as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and directed the financial creditor to pay an advance fee to the IRP. The IRP was tasked with conducting the CIRP in a time-bound manner and making a public announcement of the initiation of CIRP. Conclusion: The tribunal admitted the application filed by the financial creditor under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the corporate debtor. The tribunal declared a moratorium and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, emphasizing the continuous acknowledgment of debt in financial statements and rejecting the corporate debtor’s contentions regarding the limitation period and the competency of the signatory.
|