9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 2016 seeking reliefs as follows:- a) set aside the rejection of the Respondent dated 19.08.2020 and direct the Respondent to accept the claim of the Applicant; and b) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned Counsel for Applicant submitted that the Applicant is the absolute owner of the property and the entire building with super built up area of approximately 13,000 Sq. ft. comprising of all necessary fitting and fixtures, bearing village Panchayat Katha No. 475/461. Old Katha No. (102/1) at Arakere village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. 3. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for Applicant that the Corporate Debtor viz., M/s. Easun R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in as the IRP vide its order dated 05.05.2020. Subsequently, thereof the Applicant has lodged his claim before the IRP on 19.08.2020 and on 19.08.2020 itself, the RP has rejected the claim of the Applicant and communicated the same to the Applicant by way of e-mail. Aggrieved against the said rejection of the claim by the Respondent/RP, the Applicant has filed the present Application seeking to set aside the said rejection. 6. The Respondent has filed the counter and Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that the claim made in the Application is sought to be denied and as such it was submitted by Learned Counsel for Respondent that the lease dated 03.01.2011 executed in favour of the Corporate Debtor is an unregistered document and as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reditor and my observations as follows:- 1) The Form F is dated 12-06-2020 and Notarised on the 22.07.2020 and sent to me by email on 19-08-2020 with a delay of almost two Month from the date of Form F and almost one month from the notarization, without any justifiable reason. 2) The lease Agreement in question was executed on 03.01.2011 for a period of 3 years but not properly stamped and not registered. Hence not admissible. 3) No documentary evidence demanding arrears of rent and interest, in respect of satisfaction of Claim was enclosed/attached. 4) The reported arrears of rent is for a period of 62 months from December 2013 to January 2019 with interest and the total claim Rs. 15416682/- 5) Bank statement of Creditor showing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsued the alleged arrears of rent, if any, which is payable by the Corporate Debtor by diligently prosecuting the Corporate Debtor before any forum. 13. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of B.K. Educational Services Private Limited Vs. Parag Gupta And Associates (2019) 11 SCC 633 wherein it has held that Limitation Act is applicable since the inception of the Code (IBC, 2016) while posing itself with a query as to whether the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to Applications that are made under Section 7 and or Section 9 of the Code (IBC, 2016) on and from its commencement on 01.12.2016 to 06.06.2018 (date of amendment of insertion of Section 238-A coming into effect). At th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y not be in compliance with the existing laws for the time being in force as per Section 30(4) of the Code. 28.3 Given that the intent was not to package the Code as a fresh opportunity for creditors and claimants who did not exercise their remedy under existing laws within the prescribed limitation period, the Committee thought it fit to insert a specific section applying the Limitation Act to the Code. The relevant entry under the Limitation Act may be on a case to case basis. It was further noted that the Limitation Act may not apply to applications of corporate applicants, as these are initiated by the applicant for its own debts for the purpose of CIRP and are not in the form of a creditor's remedy". (emphasis by underline supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence in the Statue Books. 15. The Applicant, in the present case, would not be in a position to approach the Civil Court by way of a suit for recovery of money, as the claim amount admittedly falls beyond the prescribed period of limitation and thereby by filing the present Application under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016, cannot seek to enforce a claim, which is time barred as per the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 on the date of initiation of the CIRP itself. Hence, also on the said count, the Application as filed by the Applicant is liable to be dismissed. 16. Thus for the reasons stated, we find that the Respondent has rightly rejected the claim made by the Applicant in this regard and as such we are of the view that the rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
