9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation in its Part-IV has submitted that the debt is duly acknowledged by the corporate debtor in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and further since the corporate debtor has continued the non-payment of further EMIs then the default is continuing in terms of Section 22 of the Limitation Act. The applicant also submitted that since the last cheque for installment was bounced on 17.01.2018, a fresh cause of action shall be started from 17.01.2018. In the present matter in hand, there is nothing on the record that there was any acknowledgement in writing given by the respondent quo the admission of debt and promise to make the said payment. Therefore, the benefit of Section 18 of Limitation Act cannot be extended to applicant b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (J) And Narender Kumar Bhola, Member (T) ORDER Dharminder Singh, Member (J) 1. The Intec Capital Limited has filed the instant application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'the Code') read with rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') with a prayer to trigger Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of respondent Company M/s. Ratchet Laboratories Limited, referred to as the corporate debtor. 2. As succinctly put, the facts of the present case are that the applicant Intec Capital Limited, is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) duly registered with Reserve Bank of India, having its Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reement the loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments of ₹ 3,38,694/- for initial 3 months and ₹ 5,76,374/- onwards in the loan account ending on 16.03.2018. However, the corporate debtor has defaulted in making payments of loan, resultantly, the applicant recalled the entire loan amount vide loan recall notice cum Arbitration Notice dated 06.05.2015 in terms of clause 32 of the loan agreement. The Arbitration proceeding was also initiated resulting in Arbitral Award dated 26.02.2016 in favor of the applicant. The last transaction made in the loan account of corporate debtor was cheque no. 830009, reversed on 17.01.2018. Proceedings u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 was filed by applicant against corporate debto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii. Copy of Arbitral Award dated 26.02.2016. iv. Record of default available with Information utility. v. Copy of Loan Agreements dated 30.03.2013. vi. Copy of Bank Account Statements. vii. Copy of Loan Recall Notice died 06.05.2015. viii. Copy Sanction letter dated 18.03.2013. 8. The applicant has also placed on record a copy of record of default filed with NeSL (information utility) in respect of default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in its repayment owed to the Financial Creditor. The said record shows that claim of applicant is 'deemed to be authenticated'. 9. The respondent corporate debtor was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.04.2021. 10. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent quo the admission of debt and promise to make the said payment. Therefore, the benefit of Section 18 of Limitation Act cannot be extended to applicant because of the reason that the cheque which has been presented was postdated cheque and were kept by the applicant long back, perhaps at the time of sanctioning of the loan. Accordingly, the judgments relied upon are not helpful to the applicant. Whereas, Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of Mr. Sagar Sharma Anr. Vs. Phoenix ARC Private Limited Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 177 of 2019, vide its order dated 07.02.2020 has held as follows: 23. Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 relates to 'breaches and torts', for the purpose of counting the fresh period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
