9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance of confirmation is not proved. No facts, details and transactions during the period are also enclosed. It is settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding alleged amount - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd. [ 2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT ] has, inter alia, held that IBC, 2016 is not intended to be a substitute to a recovery forum. Petition dismissed. - CP (IB) NO. 79/CTB/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2019 - MS. Sucharitha R., Judicial Member And Satya Ranjan Prasad, Technical Member Patita Paban Bishwal, Adv. for the Petitioner. ORDER Ms. Sucharitha R., T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,53,622 3 54 30.07.2011 54,180 4 55 30.07.2011 2,00,000 5 56 30.07.2011 2,00,000 6 57 30.07.2011 7,82,712 7 58 30.07.2011 2,83,032 8 59 30.07.2011 4,00,000 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. From the above column, it is clear that 18 invoices are of the year 2011. Henc e, the period of limitation to claim this payment is three years under Limitation Act, 1963. This application is filed on 16.07.2019. Hence, these 18 invoices mentioned above are clearly barred by limitation. Hence, the claim of the Operational Creditor is clearly time barred. 8. Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 uses the term acknowledgement to mean an admission of an existing liability in lieu of which the period of limitation is extended. A perusal through Sec. 18 of the Limitation Act indicates certain conditions to be fulfilled in order to emphasize acknowledgement. They are: - (i) That the acknowled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application is filed on 16.07.2019 is also time barred. However, the applicant has submitted balance of confirmation dated 01.04.2019 allegedly executed by the Corporate Debtor at the time of arguments, this Adjudicating Authority sought clarification from petitioner As to how the alleged claim is well within the period of limitation? Thereafter, the petitioner produced Confirmation of Balance dated 01.04.2016, 01.04.2017, 01.04.2018 01.04.2019. In all these four balances of confirmation, the signature of the Corporate Debtor is of the same person. However, originals are not before us. Hence, we do not know the validity of this signature. Further, whether the Corporate Debtor has authorised anybody under the Board Resolution to execute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not made any other attempt to claim the outstanding till the enactment of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 came into picture. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was enacted only on 2016. Till such time we failed to understand as to why the petitioner has not made any attempt to claim the amount due and payable to it. The petitioner has not stated whether there is any pre-existing dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. Hence, when the documents filed before us are not reasonably proved whether the authorised signatory is backed by Board Resolution to sign this balance of confirmation is not proved. No facts, details and transactions during the period are also enclosed. 12. It is settled position of law that the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
