2020 (11) TMI 1063 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - time limitation - Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - HELD THAT - The ground agitated for assailing the impugned order is founded on plea of extension of limitation. The date of default being 1st July, 2001, the cause of action would not shift and therefore, limitation for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process would commence from the date of default - Subsequent restructuring of debt vide negotiated settlement which admittedly aborted and failed, would not give a fresh cause of action to Appellant. Such plea would not sustain even if the limitation is computed from the date of failure of such negotiated settlement as the application is still hit by limitation. The Appellant submits that there is continuing cause of action. This is a misplaced argument as once the date of default is there which provides cause of action to the Appellant, limitation begins to run from such date. There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Application of limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
- Effect of negotiated settlement on limitation period for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
- Continuing cause of action in insolvency proceedings.

Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, involved an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority concerning the dismissal of an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The application was filed by the Appellant, 'Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund,' against the Corporate Debtor, 'Royal Brushes Pvt. Ltd.,' based on a default that occurred on 1st July, 2001. The impugned order was challenged on the grounds that a negotiated settlement proposal made by the Corporate Debtor in 2006 should extend the limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings.

The Appellant contended that the negotiated settlement proposal in 2006, which was subsequently aborted due to non-compliance by the Corporate Debtor, should reset the limitation period for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. However, the Tribunal held that the cause of action for initiating insolvency proceedings is based on the date of default, in this case, 1st July, 2001. Therefore, any subsequent events, such as failed negotiations or restructuring attempts, do not alter the commencement of the limitation period.

The Tribunal emphasized that the date of default provides the cause of action for the Appellant, and the limitation period begins from that date. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal clarified that the limitation period, as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, commences from the date of default, and even the declaration of the account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) does not alter this starting point. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that there is no merit in the argument for a continuing cause of action beyond the original default date.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal but allowed the Appellant to seek alternative legal remedies for the recovery of the amount. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of the date of default as the starting point for calculating the limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings, emphasizing that subsequent events or failed negotiations do not extend or reset this timeline.