9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2018. The triggering of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, therefore, cannot be said to be beyond limitation, more so as there has been acknowledgement of debt on 26th February, 2015 and remedy for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in terms of Section 7 of I B Code was not available prior to 1st December, 2016. That apart, there has been continuing cause of action as OA 1194 of 2016 filed by the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai on 19th October, 2016 is still pending adjudication. Learned counsel for the Appellant made feeble attempt to contend that the debt acknowledgement letter dated 26th February, 2015 was manipulated and fictitious and same could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not be maintainable. Contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that the appeal has been preferred through its Director (presently suspended) is not tenable inasmuchas neither the Director of the (suspended) Board of Directors has filed the appeal in his independent capacity nor has the Corporate Debtor M/s Shalini Publicity Creative Pvt. Ltd. been arraigned as party respondent to the appeal. The appeal on that score would not be maintainable unless the Director Manobhav Tilak Tripathi seeks substitution as Appellant in its independent capacity and transposition of the Corporate Debtor as party respondent to the appeal. However, before permitting such exercise to be undertaken, it would be appropriate to ascertain whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Financial Creditor nor contested the allegation of default on its part. 5. The Adjudicating Authority taking note of the fact that the One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal made by the Corporate Debtor had been rejected by the Financial Creditor and that the debt and default was established, proceeded to admit the application thereby initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant tried to make a vain attempt to assail the impugned order raising the issue of limitation. In the first place be it seen that no such plea was raised before the Adjudicating Authority. That apart, under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the right to sue ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of default committed qua the financial debt was admittedly not available to a Financial Creditor prior to such date. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the Appellant that the application under Section 7 of I B Code came to be filed by the Financial Creditor on 12th October, 2018. The triggering of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, therefore, cannot be said to be beyond limitation, more so as there has been acknowledgement of debt on 26th February, 2015 and remedy for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in terms of Section 7 of I B Code was not available prior to 1st December, 2016. That apart, there has been continuing cause of action as OA 1194 of 2016 filed by the Financial Creditor against the Corporate D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
