9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its pleadings so as to incorporate what is stated in the written submissions filed by it before NCLAT, subject to costs of Rs 1,00,000 to be paid by the appellant to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to the appellant being put to terms, the course adopted by this Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited [ 2021 (4) TMI 753 - SUPREME COURT ] should be followed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is remanded back and will be restored back to file. - Civil Appeal No. 2264 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 20-10-2021 - K.M. Joseph And Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. V. M. Kannan, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR, Ms. Megha Karnwal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t (MRA) dated 26.09.2013 and further, the acknowledgement contained in the One time Settlement(OTS) application dated 19.06.2015. It was inter alia found by the NCLAT that having regard to the fact that the application under Section 7 of the IBC was only filed on 12.09.2018, the application would be barred by limitation even if the acknowledgements as pressed for by the appellant in the MRA and the OTS were taken into consideration. The contention that there was acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act by virtue of the acknowledgment contained in the balance sheets of the respondent does not seem to have been considered in the order. It is the case of the appellant that a perusal of the rejoinder and the wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity to entertain and/or to allow the request of the Appellant Bank for the filing of additional documents with supporting pleadings, and to consider such documents and pleadings did not call for interference in appeal. Countering the said line of argument, Shri V.N. Kannan, learned counsel for the appellant, drew our attention to paragraph 57 of the judgment in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (supra) which reads as follows: 57. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the appellant has been completely remiss and deficient in pleading acknowledgement of liability on the facts of this case. However, given the staggering amount allegedly due from the respondents, we afford one further opportunity to the appellant to amend its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
