9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent dates and relate to different work sites. Also, the last payment on which the petitioner is relying upon above is for the M.P. site. The said payment would extend the limitation period, under section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 only for the default under an agreement relating to M.P. site and not the other agreements. Therefore, it is only the claim of ₹35,50,370/-, for goods provided to M.P. site, which is within limitation and not the entire claim of ₹64,70,071/- as claimed by the Petitioner in the Petition - the claim of the Petitioner is barred by limitation. The Petitioner has claimed a total amount of ₹64,70,071/- that includes the claim which is barred by limitation as well as the claim which may not be barred b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,74,630/- 6,24,630/- 3. Mahul 7,13,619/- 5,97,937/- 13,11,556/- 4. M.P. 19,84,655/- 15,65,715/- 35,50,370/- Total 64,70,071/- 3. The Petitioner has further given the following details regarding the date of default and the date of last payment for each of the sites: S. No. Site Date of First Default Date of Last Payment 1. Adani 02/02/2012 27/04/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petition is not barred by limitation and should be admitted. 7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. 8. It is pertinent to note the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Educational Services Private Limited vs Parag Gupta and Associates Civil Appeal No.23988 of 2017 dated 11.10.2018 where it was held that the Limitation Act applies to applications filed under section 7 and 9 of I B Code since the inception of the I B Code. The relevant para is reproduced below: It is thus clear that since the Limitation Act applies to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. The right to sue , therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther stated that the Corporate Debtor had released an amount of ₹4,00,000/- on 27.06.2016 in pursuance of this communication. 11. Admittedly, the goods were supplied under separate purchase orders that are of different dates and relate to different work sites. Also, the last payment on which the petitioner is relying upon above is for the M.P. site. The said payment would extend the limitation period, under section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 only for the default under an agreement relating to M.P. site and not the other agreements. Therefore, it is only the claim of ₹35,50,370/-, for goods provided to M.P. site, which is within limitation and not the entire claim of ₹64,70,071/- as claimed by the Petitioner in the Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-barred debt we would not deliberate upon the merit of this case. 16. We at this moment reject this petition as the debt being barred by law of limitation. ORDER The petition is filed under section 9 of I B Code against Gactel Turnkey Project Ltd., Corporate Debtor, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is rejected. We have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner, and it is open for the petitioner to raise its claim before the competent authority unaffected by this order. The Registry is at this moment directed to immediately communicate this order to the Operational Creditor even by way of email or WhatsApp. Compliance report of the order by Designated Registrar is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
