9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany in its balance sheet as on 31st March, 2002 of the accounts of the sundry creditors amounts to an acknowledgement of the debts in their favour for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The assessee s liability to the creditors, thus, subsisted and did not cease nor was it remitted by the creditors. The liability was enforceable in a court of law. The appeal is denuded of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Respondent No. 1 on 15.06.2015 and an application under Section 7 of the Code was filed by Respondent No. 1 on 11.09.2018 to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) alleging that the total amount of debt due is Rs. 689,19,83,028.19/- 3. The Respondent No. 2 contested the application filed under Section 7 of the Code on the ground that the same is barred by limitation as the account was declared as NPA on 15.06.2015 whereas the application under Section 7 was filed on 11.09.2018 after a gap of three years whereas the limitation to file such an application, as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short 'Act') is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. However, the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly challenged the order dated 16.10.2019 only on the ground that the application filed under Section 7 of the Code was barred by limitation because the limitation was to be counted from the date when the account was declared as NPA i.e. 15.06.2015 and the application under Section 7 of the Code was filed on 11.09.2018, beyond the period of three years. 7. He has further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has committed a patent error in extending the period of limitation w.e.f. 31.03.2016 on the ground that the outstanding amount has been reflected in the balance sheet of the Appellant. He has argued that the said amount has been shown as borrowings and not as debt and therefore, entry in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2016 cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubt about the fact that the aforesaid amount is an acknowledgement of debt and not just an entry of the borrowing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishal Jaiswal (Supra) has pleased to hold that "In several judgments of this Court, this legal position has been accepted. In Daya Chand Uttam Prakash Jain v. Santosh Devi Sharma 67 (1997) DLT 13, S.N. Kapoor J. applied the principle in a case where the primary question was whether a suit under Order 37 CPC could be filed on the basis of an acknowledgement. In Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commercial Electric Works 67 (1997) DLT 387 a Single Judge of this Court observed that it is well settled that a balance sheet of a company, where the defendants had shown a particular amount as due to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
