9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o deduce if that has been endorsed by the Corporate Debtor. It appears to the naked eye that the last balance confirmation letter in which there is a signature appears to be forged. Hence, the balance confirmations cannot be considered under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1872 as acknowledgements. Petition dismissed. - CP (IB) No. 308/KB/2020 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2021 - Rajasekhar V. K. , Member ( J ) And Harish Chander Suri , Member ( T ) For the Appellant : Sidharth Sharma and Ujjaini Chatterjee , Advocates For the Respondents : Jishnu Chowdhary, Vikram Wadhera and Vidushi Chokhani , Advocates ORDER Rajasekhar V.K., Member (J) 1. This court convened via video conferencing. 2. This Company Petition has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm of the ICD was for ninety days, i.e. from 25.01.2012 to 23.04.2012. The term was renewed on 24.03.2012 for a further period of ninety days on the same terms till 22.07.2012, which was further renewed on 10.07.2012 for ninety four days, on 13.10.2012 for ninety days and lastly on 22.01.2013 for a period of ninety days. d. The Corporate Debtor had issued post dated cheques (PDCs) after each renewal, when the Corporate Debtor failed to make the payment, the cheque dated 23.02.2013 was deposited which was dishonoured. e. Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor issued two cheques which were also dishonoured with remarks PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER. f. The Financial Creditor sent a letter of confirmation dated 21.04.2015 for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleges the same were never given to the Corporate Debtor and it seems to be fabricated. He further asserts that the Corporate Debtor had arrived at a full and final settlement agreement of ₹ 3,00,000/- with the Financial Creditor. The said amount was transferred in the account of the Financial Creditor on 13.10.2018 which is reflected in the Bank statement that is annexed with the reply. Annexure A at page 12 8. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor that the claim is barred under law of limitation as the alleged date of default is 17.09.2013 and this petition has been filed beyond the period of three years. He reiterates that the balance confirmations for the years 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture but the signatory has not given his identification below the signature, hence we are unable to deduce if that has been endorsed by the Corporate Debtor. It appears to the naked eye that the last balance confirmation letter in which there is a signature appears to be forged. Hence, the balance confirmations cannot be considered under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1872 as acknowledgements. The claim is thus barred by limitation and hence we are not inclined to allow this petition. 14. CP (IB) No. 308/KB/2020 is dismissed accordingly. 15. The Registry is directed to send e-mail copies of the order forthwith to all the parties and their Ld. Counsel for information and for taking necessary steps. 16. Certified Copy of this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
