9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 456 - AT - IBCTime limitation for filing company petition - whether the company petition was filed by the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Rajasthan Financial Corporate before the Adjudicating Authority in time or was hit by limitation? - HELD THAT - This Appellate Tribunal gave four specific opportunities to the Appellant to file the rejoinder affidavit however the Appellant did not file any rejoinder. On next occasion the Appellant requested for an adjournment. Thus despite of several opportunities the Appellant did not give any contrary facts through his reply affidavit contesting submissions made by the Respondent No. 1 before us. Thus the fact mentioned by the Respondent No. 1 regarding OTS letters and the issue of extension of limitation from time to time taken into consideration including last OTS dated 16.05.2017 extending limitation period upto 15.05.2020 and the Apex Court suo moto order 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER passed in Writ Petition (c) No. 03 of 2020 which extended limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. The Respondent No. 1 filed the Company Petition on 12.08.2021 which was within limitation period available in the present case. Thus Company Petition was covered under limitation period as discussed in preceding discussion. It is also noted that in catena of judgments including by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India it has been held that limitation is a matter of both facts and law and it can be invoked at any stage by any of the party or any court even at an appeal stage. Reliance placed in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. LAO 2024 (5) TMI 1319 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court s refusal to condone a delay of 5659 days in filing an appeal against the dismissal of a land acquisition compensation reference was dismissed - The present case of the Respondent No. 1 gets benefits from the above judgment. Conclusion - Thus the Company Petition was filed by the Respondent No. 1 within limitation period before the Adjudicating Authority and was not hit by limitation as alleged by the Appellant. Since this is the only issue involved in the present appeal hence there are no merit in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the company petition filed by the Respondent No. 1, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, before the Adjudicating Authority was barred by limitation as per the Limitation Act, 1963, or if it was filed within the permissible timeframe. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The primary legal framework involves the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly Section 5 concerning the condonation of delay, and Section 18 regarding the acknowledgment of debt. Additionally, the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, are relevant. The judgment also references the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted that the acknowledgment of debt by the Appellant through various one-time settlement (OTS) proposals extended the limitation period. The Tribunal also considered the Supreme Court's order that extended the limitation period due to the pandemic, which further supported the timely filing of the petition. - Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the Appellant had made multiple OTS proposals, with the last acknowledgment occurring on 16.05.2017, which extended the limitation period to 15.05.2020. The petition was filed on 12.08.2021, within the extended limitation period, considering the Supreme Court's order. - Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied Section 18 of the Limitation Act, acknowledging that the OTS proposals effectively extended the limitation period. The Supreme Court's decision to extend limitation periods due to COVID-19 was also applied, further validating the timeliness of the petition. - Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellant argued that the petition was time-barred, citing a lack of due diligence and the expiration of the limitation period. In contrast, Respondent No. 1 argued that the OTS proposals and the Supreme Court's order extended the limitation period. The Tribunal favored Respondent No. 1's interpretation, finding that the petition was filed within the permissible timeframe. - Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the petition was not barred by limitation, as the acknowledgment of debt and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods justified the delay in filing. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The present case of the Respondent No. 1 gets benefits from the above judgment." - Core principles established: The Tribunal established that acknowledgment of debt through OTS proposals extends the limitation period. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods due to extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic is applicable to insolvency proceedings. - Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal determined that the company petition filed by Respondent No. 1 was within the limitation period and not barred by limitation as alleged by the Appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
|
