9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than three years, the cause of action having taken place on 9th May, 2012 - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to decide the question whether there is a delay in preferring the application under Section 9 or not in view of the fact that the present appeal under Section 61 by the Corporate Debtor is not maintainable as per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el, Adv. for the Appellant. Akshay Sharma, Adv. for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred by 'Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd.'- ('Corporate Debtor') against the order dated 9th July, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench- III, whereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the Respondent- 'RVR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made by the 'Corporate Debtor' in the year 2013 and thereafter, correspondence was going on for the payment of amount which can be shown if time is allowed to file reply affidavit. 5. However, we are not inclined to decide the question whether there is a delay in preferring the application under Section 9 or not in view of the fact that the present appeal under Section 61 by the ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the Appellant submitted that Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will be applicable as the matter related to the 'price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant'. However, as the Article 18 is in Part 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963, will not be applicable in the present case which is not a 'suit' nor to be treated as a 'recovery proceeding' under the 'I&B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
