9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such evidence, it is held that this application is not maintainable. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is a time barred debt because, according the Operational Creditor himself, the debt was due on 23.01.2013 when default occurred. This application is filed three years beyond that period and hence, it is time barred. This application is not maintainable on two grounds that there is no evidence of service of demand notice under Section 8 of the IB. Code and the debt is time barred - petition dismissed. - CP (IB) No. 849/9/NCLT/AHM/2019 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2021 - Madan B. Gosavi, Member (J) and Virendra Kumar Gupta, Member (T) For the Appellant : Arpit Singhvi, Learned Counsel For the Respondents : Arjun Sheth and Rhea Seva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction to entertain and admit this application. The Corporate Debtor did not receive any demand notice under Section 8 of the IB. Code and in absence of delivery of notice, this application under Section 9 of the IB. Code is not maintainable. The date of default is stated as 23.01.2013 (i.e., last payment allegedly made by the Corporate Debtor). And this application is filed in the year 2019. It is filed beyond the period of limitation. It is also contended that debt claimed herein, is still subject to the dispute in Civil suit. The Operational Creditor did not comply Section 9(3)(b) and 9(3)(c) of the IB. Code. For these reasons this application is not maintainable and it may be rejected. 5. We have gone through the evidence and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016. Section 4 of the IB. Code is amended on 24.03.2020 by increasing minimum default amount to rupees one crore in place of rupees one lakh. It is now well settled that this amendment cannot be read in retrospection. Since, this application under Section 9 of the IB. Code on 03.02.2019 and as Section 4 is amended, after filing of this application by increasing threshold limit; we hold that the amendment does not relate back to the date of default in this case. 9. The Corporate Debtor contended that the Operational Creditor did not serve upon it the notice of demand under Section 8 of IB. Code prior to filing of this application which is a mandate of law. It cannot be disputed by anyone that the provisions of Section 8 of IB. Code are ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) By a speed post, a registered post A.D. (ii) By a hand delivery and (iii) Through an electronic email service. 11. In this case, it is the contention of the Operational Creditor that demand notice was served to the Corporate Debtor by a private courier service which is, we hold that it is not a legally recognized mode of service. The Operational Creditor further stated that notice was also served by speed post. For this, he relied on postal-track report at page No. 165-169. We perused that the notice was not delivered to the Corporate Debtor. It has been mentioned in the track-report Out for delivery. In-short, there is not clear and convincing evidence produced on record by the Operational Creditor to prove the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seek benefit under Section 18 of the Law of Limitation stating that the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged the debt within three (03) years from the date of default and thereby he is entitled for extension of limitation period for three more years but the Operational Creditor did not put-forth before us his such contention. From the evidence on record, it appears that the debt is time barred. 14. The Operational Creditor in his rejoinder relied on an order of Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of G. Shivramkrishna Vs. M/s. IsgecCovema Limited [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1109 of 2019]. We have gone through that order. Hon'ble NCLAT has held that the date of arbitral award is the date on which the debt to be due against the Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
