9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1181 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - On perusal of the documents produced by the Financial Creditor, it is pertinent to note that the first balance confirmation letter has the stamp of the Corporate Debtor but there is no signature, except For Harsh has been written below the stamp of the Corporate Debtor. The other balance confirmation dated 31.03.2017 has a stamp and signature but the signatory has not given his identification below the signature, hence we are unable to deduce if that has been endorsed by the Corporate Debtor. It appears to the naked eye that the last balance confirmation letter in which there is a signature appears to be forged. Hence, the balance confirmations cannot be considered under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1872 as acknowledgements. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Default in payment by the Corporate Debtor; Allegations of full and final settlement; Barred claim under the law of limitation. Analysis: The case involves a Company Petition filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by a Financial Creditor seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor for failing to make payments. The Financial Creditor claimed a total amount of &8377; 15,81,963/- as of 02.01.2020, including the principal and interest. The Financial Creditor alleged that the Corporate Debtor had taken an Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) of &8377; 10,00,000/- with 17% interest for a period of ninety days, which was renewed multiple times. The Corporate Debtor issued post-dated cheques (PDCs) which were dishonoured, leading to a dispute regarding payments. The Financial Creditor contended that the default date was 17.09.2013, and the default was ongoing, supported by balance confirmation letters and demands for payment sent to the Corporate Debtor. On the other hand, the Corporate Debtor claimed a full and final settlement agreement of &8377; 3,00,000/-, transferred to the Financial Creditor's account on 13.10.2018, which was disputed by the Financial Creditor. The Corporate Debtor argued that the claim was time-barred under the law of limitation, alleging fabricated balance confirmations and endorsements by the Financial Creditor. After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the evidence, the Tribunal noted that the balance confirmations provided by the Financial Creditor lacked proper signatures and raised doubts about their authenticity. The Tribunal concluded that the claim was barred by limitation and dismissed the Company Petition. The decision highlighted the summary nature of proceedings under the Code and emphasized the importance of valid documentation to establish settlements and acknowledgments in such cases.
|
