9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 453 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT - It is evident from the records that both Appellant and Respondent No. 1 herein resorted to filing proceedings/claims/counter claims before other forums - Even if the learned Counsel for the Appellant intend to take a stand that the pending proceeding before the DRT and other Civil Courts get extends the limitation, we are of the firm opinion that the proceedings before the DRT and other forums, will not get the benefit of extending the limitation period merely on the basis of pending proceedings before the DRT. In this regard, it is unequivocal and settled law that the IBC is a complete Code and as per Section 238 of IBC it has overriding effect on other laws. Therefore, pending proceedings before other forums, the limitation will not get extended. There are no illegality in the order passed by Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the Application filed by the Appellant-Bank under Section 7 of IBC - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Whether the Application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can be rejected on the ground of limitation? 2. Whether the Impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code? 3. Whether the Application filed by the Appellant within the limitation period as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 4. Whether pending proceedings before other forums can extend the limitation period for filing under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code? Analysis: Issue 1: The Appellant, a bank, filed an Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the Corporate Debtor seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Corporate Debtor contested the matter, arguing that the Application was time-barred as it was filed beyond the limitation period. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Application, stating that it was not within the period of limitation. The Authority referred to the Limitation Act, 1963, and the judgment of the Supreme Court to support its decision. Issue 2: The Appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the Application was filed within the limitation period as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The Appellant contended that the right to apply accrued from the date of acknowledgment of debt and not from the date of default. The Appellant cited relevant legal provisions and Supreme Court judgments to support their argument. Issue 3: The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Limitation Act in detail. It considered the definitions of "claim," "debt," "default," and "dispute" under the Code. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of pending proceedings before other forums and their impact on the limitation period for filing under the Code. Issue 4: The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing that the Application was rightly rejected on the ground of limitation. It reiterated the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 137 of the Limitation Act as applicable to applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, finding no merit in the Appellant's arguments and stating that no interference was warranted.
|
