9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1665 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - time limitation - HELD THAT - It is evident that despite notice sent by the OC to CD, on 13.11.2017 and which it is stated to have been delivered on the next day and despite receipt of demand notice, since no payment has been received nor reply sent denying the claim as raised by the OC against the CD, the Petitioner is before this Tribunal seeking for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the CD. Upon notice, the Corporate Debtor is being represented by Mr. Ritwil Mittal, Advocate, who has filed reply to the main Company Petition, more particularly, preliminary objections have been raised for the maintainability of the Petition on the grounds of limitation. This Tribunal is of the view that the Debit Note which has been raised on 31.3.2016 and which has been incorporated in the Ledger Account has been made for the purpose of these proceedings and which clearly shows that this Petition is time barred and obviously filed beyond the period of limitation. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) by an Operational Creditor (OC) against a Corporate Debtor (CD). 2. Dispute regarding non-payment of amount for the supply of CRGO Laminations. 3. Legal arguments on the point of limitation raised by the Corporate Debtor. 4. Technical objection regarding the authorization of the Authorized Representative (AR) who filed the Petition. Analysis: 1. The Petition was filed under the IBC, 2016 by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor for non-payment of Rs.1,68,76,753/- along with interest. The Operational Creditor is a registered company, and the Corporate Debtor was incorporated in 1988. The Petition included details of transactions between the parties related to the supply of CRGO Laminations from February 2015 to March 2016. 2. Despite notices and demand letters, the Corporate Debtor did not make the payment or deny the claim. The Corporate Debtor raised objections, including the claim being time-barred and the quality of goods supplied being sub-standard. The Operational Creditor argued that the period of limitation should start from the end of the financial year in 2016, relying on judgments of the High Court of Delhi. 3. The Corporate Debtor relied on a Supreme Court judgment regarding the limitation period, stating that the Petition was filed beyond the 3-year limitation period from the last payment date in 2015. The Corporate Debtor also raised a technical objection regarding the authorization of the Authorized Representative who filed the Petition, which was countered by the Petitioner providing a copy of the Board Resolution. 4. The Tribunal considered the arguments on limitation and found that the Petition was time-barred based on a Debit Note raised on 31.3.2016, which was done to bring it within the limitation period. The Tribunal dismissed the Petition as time-barred, citing the Supreme Court's decision and lack of details provided by the Operational Creditor regarding the Debit Note. The technical objection regarding authorization was deemed to lack merit, and the Petition was dismissed without costs.
|
