9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1184 - SC - IBCInitiation of CIRP proceedings - existence of debt - main objection to the initiation of CIRP proceedings on the ground of limitation was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that there is an acknowledgement of debt in the financial statements as well as auditor s report of the Corporate Debtor for the year ending on 31.03.2017 - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority as well as the NCLAT have concurrently held that the entries in the balance sheets amount to clear acknowledgment of debt. The findings are agreed upon. Further, Note 3.4 appended to said balance sheet entry dated 31.03.2017 mentions that company has made certain defaults in the repayment of term loans and interest. It further mentions of a continuing default. The entry also mentions long-term borrowings. The conclusions of NCLT and NCLAT that there is acknowledgment of debt are unimpeachable. Adjudicating Authority and NCLAT have also considered the Corporate Debtor s proposal of One Time Settlement (OTS) to UCO Bank. The proposal made by letter dated 07.06.2016 acknowledges that there were prior debts owed to UCO Bank. To substantiate the argument that such OTS constituted acknowledgment of debt since it relates to present and subsisting liability and indicates existence of a jural relationship between the parties, UCO Bank relied on judgment of this Court in Lakshmirattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. and Messrs Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Aluminium Corporation of India Limited 1970 (10) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT . The findings arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority and NCLAT are correct in law and fact - there are no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the Bank to file the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 2. Existence of debt and default by the Corporate Debtor. 3. Application of the Limitation Act, particularly Section 18, to the proceedings under the IBC. 4. Acknowledgment of debt in the balance sheets and its impact on the limitation period. 5. One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal as an acknowledgment of debt. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of the Bank to File the Petition: The Adjudicating Authority held that the General Manager of the Bank was legally authorized to act on behalf of the Bank and sign the application under Section 7 of the IBC. This was challenged by the Corporate Debtor, but the Authority found that the General Manager had the requisite authority, thus affirming the Bank's competency to file the petition. 2. Existence of Debt and Default: The Adjudicating Authority examined the credit agreements and terms of the loan to conclude that the Corporate Debtor defaulted on repayment of both principal and interest. The contention that there was no debt was rejected based on the evidence of disbursed loans and the default. 3. Application of the Limitation Act: The Adjudicating Authority applied Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the extension of the limitation period upon acknowledgment of debt. The Authority found that the acknowledgment in the financial statements and auditor's report for the year ending 31.03.2017 was sufficient to reset the limitation period, making the CIRP initiation on 13.02.2019 timely. 4. Acknowledgment of Debt in Balance Sheets: The NCLAT and the Adjudicating Authority found that entries in the balance sheets amounted to an acknowledgment of debt, thus extending the limitation period. The Supreme Court reiterated that the balance sheet prepared as per statutory requirements need not specify each creditor's name. It emphasized that acknowledgment of debt in the balance sheet suffices for extending the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. 5. One Time Settlement (OTS) Proposal: The Corporate Debtor's OTS proposal to UCO Bank was considered an acknowledgment of debt. The proposal indicated a subsisting liability and a jural relationship between the parties, which, according to precedents, constitutes an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that such proposals, even if not specifying the exact nature of the liability, indicate acknowledgment of debt. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and NCLAT, dismissing the appeal. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the lack of clear acknowledgment of debt in the balance sheets and the OTS proposal. The entries in the balance sheet and the OTS letter were deemed sufficient to acknowledge the debt, thus extending the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
