2018 (9) TMI 849 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - limitation Act applicability - Held that - As Appellant submitted that the claim related to the year 2010 and thereby it was barred by limitation, but such submission cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Appellate Tribunal in M/s. Speculum Plast Pvt. Ltd. V/s. PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. ─Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2017 (12) TMI 454 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI , wherein this Appellate Tribunal held that the Limitation Act will not be applicable to the proceeding under I&B Code . Then it is contended that the total records were not enclosed by the Operational Creditor as is required under the law, but in absence of any specific pleading, such arguments cannot be accepted. If there was any defect in the application, it was open to the Appellant to point out the same to the Adjudicating Authority to enable the Operational Creditor to cure the defects. However, as there is nothing on the record to suggest that the application under Section 9 of the I&B Code preferred by the Respondent- Operational Creditor was defective, we reject the submission. No merit in this appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation period for the claim related to the year 2010 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Compliance with the requirement of submitting total records by the Operational Creditor under the law.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against an order admitting an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Appellant argued that the claim related to the year 2010 and was barred by limitation. However, the Appellate Tribunal referred to a previous judgment where it was held that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the argument regarding limitation was dismissed based on this precedent.

2. Another contention raised was regarding the total records not being enclosed by the Operational Creditor as required by law. The Appellate Tribunal noted that without specific pleading and in the absence of any defect pointed out to the Adjudicating Authority, such arguments cannot be accepted. It was mentioned that if there were any defects in the application, the Appellant should have pointed them out to enable the Operational Creditor to cure them. Since there was no evidence to suggest that the application was defective, this argument was also rejected.

3. Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it without imposing any costs. The decision was based on the precedent that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the lack of evidence supporting the claim of incomplete records by the Operational Creditor.