9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1199 - AT - IBCDismissal of petition for being barred by limitation as having been preferred beyond the prescribed period contemplated under law for initiation of the CIRP proceedings - HELD THAT - In the instant Appeal, actual balance period of limitation remaining with effect from 01.03.2022 is the period from 01.03.2022 to 06.09.2022, that is, 190 days. Since this is greater than 90 days, the end date of limitation period will continue to be 06.09.2022 and not 22.08.2024 as contended by the Appellant. The determination of period of limitation as it has been sought to be impressed upon by the Counsel for Appellant, in which he is attempting to compute the end date of the limitation period by adding 905 days from 01.03.2022 on the premises that 905 days is the actual balance period of limitation remaining is absolutely a misconceived notion because the actual balance period of limitation has to be calculated from 01.03.2022 - as the Company Petition was filed only on 17.04.2023, it is clear that it has been filed much beyond 06.09.2022, the end date of limitation period and accordingly, the rejection of the Company Petition on the ground that has been observed by the Learned adjudicating authority does not suffer from any error. The dismissal of the Company Appeal is also desirable for the reason being that, the proceedings which are held under the I B Code,2016, are to be strictly construed in a straight jacketed formula, so far it relates to the aspect and computation of limitation, because period of limitation invariably in all the proceedings under the I B Code, 2016 has an objective to be attained and it cannot be stretched according to the expectation of the appellant to defeat the very objective of the Act, which itself contemplates that, the proceedings of CIRP has had to be concluded in the specified time frame. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to Impugned Order based on limitation period for initiation of CIRP proceedings under I&B Code, 2016. Analysis: The Appellant challenged the Impugned Order rendered by the NCLT, Bangalore Bench in CP(IB) No. 100/BB/2023 under Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016, against the Respondent/Corporate Debtor. The Company Petition was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority as barred by limitation. The Appellant filed the application on 17.04.2023, claiming a default by the Corporate Debtor on 07.09.2019, amounting to Rs. 2,43,48,930. The dismissal was solely based on the ground of limitation. The key facts include the date of default on 07.09.2019, and the period of limitation under Section 238A of I&B Code being 3 years from the date of default, ending on 06.09.2022. The Hon'ble Apex Court, due to Covid-19, excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes. The Appellant argued that the limitation period would extend to 22.08.2024, deducting 190 days from the total period of 1095 days. The Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes, with a balance period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. The Appellant contended that the limitation period would extend to 22.08.2024. However, as the actual balance period was 190 days, exceeding 90 days, the end date of the limitation period remained 06.09.2022, not 22.08.2024 as claimed by the Appellant. The Company Petition was e-filed on 10.04.2023 and physically filed on 17.04.2023, well beyond the end date of the limitation period as per the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment. The Appellant's attempt to compute the end date by adding 905 days from 01.03.2022 was deemed misconceived. The rejection of the Company Petition by the Adjudicating Authority was upheld as it was filed much beyond 06.09.2022, the end date of the limitation period. The dismissal of the Company Appeal was deemed appropriate as the I&B Code proceedings must adhere strictly to the limitation period to achieve the Act's objective. The proceedings under the I&B Code are time-bound, and the limitation period cannot be stretched to suit the appellant's expectations. The Appeal lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.
|
