9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue an acknowledgement in the legal sense. In the instant case, the issue raised regarding Limitation is not solely whether the communication initiated between the parties with a view to restructure the loan/OTS Proposals construes acknowledgement of debt , but whether the debt acknowledged vide letter dated 19/12/2015 and signed by the Appellants and further whether the amounts reflected in the Balance Sheets tantamounts to acknowledgement as defined under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Having regard to the fact that the date of NPA is 30/09/2014, there is an acknowledgement of debt dated 19/12/2015 and the Financial Statements of the year ending 2016 evidence the loans taken by the Corporate Debtor , apart from the various Restructuring/OTS Proposals advanced between the parties, indicating the existence of a jural relationship between them, the ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dena Bank [ 2021 (8) TMI 315 - SUPREME COURT ] is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and hence we hold that the Application filed under Section 7 of the Code is well within the period of Limitation. Appeal dismissed. - COMPANYAPPEAL ( AT ) ( INSOLVENCY ) No. 145 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. It is submitted that another proposal was sent by the Appellant on 29/12/2014 which was also rejected. On 12/02/2015, the Bank issued a Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to repay the due amount of Rs.54,32,74,829.91/-. The Corporate Debtor preferred an Application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, on 15/09/2016, which is still pending. It is strenuously argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the date of default being 30/09/2014, and Section 7 Application having been filed on 24/04/2018, which is beyond the three years of the date of default , the Application is barred by Limitation . Learned Counsel placed reliance on the Judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Civil Appeal No. 5608 of 2006, in paras (36, 38, 39 44) in support of his contention that the correspondence made during settlement talks/OTS Proposals will not construe acknowledgement of debt . The Appellant filed their Written Submissions on 04/05/2022 reiterating that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in noting NPA as 30/06/2016 when it is actually 30/09/2014. The dates of the restructuring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Judgement relied upon by the Appellant Counsel i.e., Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) deals with repudation of an insurance claim on several grounds and an issue was framed as to whether the suit filed challenging this repudation, was barred by Limitation . While deciding the issue pertaining to the case, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as follows: (c) When is correspondence treated as within the rule? The first question is to determine what communications attract without prejudice privilege. The second stage is to consider when the court will, nevertheless, admit such communications. Correspondence will only be protected by without prejudice privilege if it is written for the purpose of a genuine attempt to compromise a dispute between the parties. It is not a precondition that the correspondence bears the heading without prejudice. If it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that the parties were seeking to compromise the action, evidence of the content of those negotiations will, as a general rule, not be admissible. The converse is that there are some circumstances in which the words are used but where the documents do not attract without prejudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letter dated 19/12/2015 and signed by the Appellants and further whether the amounts reflected in the Balance Sheets tantamounts to acknowledgement as defined under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 9. At this juncture, we place reliance on the ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dena Bank (Supra) which reads as follows: 138. While it is true that default in payment of a debt triggers the right to initiate the corporate resolution process, and a petition under Section 7 or 9 IBC is required to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law, which in this case would be three years from the date of default by virtue of Section 238-A IBC read with Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the delay in filing a petition in the NCLT is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act unlike delay in filing a suit. Furthermore, as observed above Sections 14 and 18 of the Limitation Act are also applicable to proceedings under the IBC. 139. Section 18 of the Limitation Act cannot also be construed with pedantic rigidity in relation to proceedings under the IBC. This Court sees no reason why an offer of one-time settlement of live claim, made w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
