9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] the date of NPA is the date of default. In the present case as stated above, the date of default as mentioned by the Appellant in Form-I is 30th April 2013 and the Application filed by them on 12th September 2018 is beyond three years. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent exited from the MRA on 31st January 2015. Therefore, the Appellant cannot rely upon the acknowledgement in the Master Restructuring Agreement. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the Master Restructuring Agreement it is well beyond three years, therefore, the Appellant cannot take a stand with regard to the acknowledgement. Further even taking into consideration, the OTS proposal given by the Respondent dated 19th June 2015 as contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that at page 147 of the Appeal paper book. It is stated as under Proposing for One Time Settlement with banks with a payment in 6 quarters . The Learned Counsel for the Appellant strongly relied upon, the above statement of the Respondent, that since the Respondent had given a One Time Settlement Proposal on 19th June 2015. Therefore, it is a clear acknowledgement by the Respondent regarding debt. Appeal dismissed. - [Justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f acknowledging the debt and default by the Respondent and rejected the Application filed by them under Section 7 of I B Code seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short CIRP ). Further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the, only ground taken by the Learned Adjudicating Authority is that the Application is barred by limitation by taking into consideration the date of declaring the NPA as date of default by following the judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court of India in B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates. However, Per contra the Learned Counsel relied upon various judgements, in support of his case. 6. In view of the submissions made the Learned Counsel prayed the Bench to allow the Appeal by setting aside the impugned Order dated 27th March 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Hyderabad Bench. 7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent filed their Counter Affidavit to this Appeal and submitted that the Hon ble Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the Application filed by the Appellant herein, under Section 7 of the I B Code. He is submitted that in Form-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1921 held that the limitation starts from the date of default i.e. when the account was declared NPA. We have perused Form-I annexed at Annexure A-10 page 244 of Appeal paper book filed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Part IV of the form, the Appellant had given the particulars of the Financial Debts, the total disbursed amount and the date of disbursement. Part-IV para 2 at Page 247 against column, the date on which the default occurred, it shows that the accounts of unit were classified NPA w.e.f. 30th April 2013 due to failed restructuring as per the provisions of classification of IRAC issued by Reserve Bank of India. 12. Therefore, it is amply clear that the date of default is 30th April 2013 and the Application filed before the Learned Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of the I B Code on 12th September 2018 which is beyond three years and we agree with the finding(s) given by the Learned Adjudicating Authority, that the Application is barred by limitation. Further, the Learned Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent regarding debt. We have gone through the said documents annexed as A-6 at page 143 with the heading as viz:- Note for the JLM to be held on 19.06.2015 at State Bank of India, SAMB, Khairatabad . From the perusal of the document, it is clear that at page 147 of the Note for the JLM, it is stated as corrective action plan at Bullet Point No.5 from the top. There is a mention that proposing for One Time Settlement to the Banks with a payment in six quarters. However, even the said document taken into consideration as an acknowledgement, however it is dated 19th June 2015 and the Appellant filed an Application on 19th September 2018 which is beyond period of three years and it is clearly hit by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon judgment of this Hon ble Tribunal passed in CA (AT)(Ins.) No. 28 of 2019 dated 08th November, 2019. This Tribunal held that there is a clear acknowledgement of the outstanding debt in writing and held that the Corporate Debtor cannot wriggle out of the liability so acknowledged . 15. While so in the present case, there is no specific acknowledgement in writing admitting the debt. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
