TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the interest amount - The issue of the limitation, being very relevant for maintainability of application under Section 9 assumes its importance; and even if there exists a debt which is defaulted and not paid, the application filed under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 for initiating CIRP proceedings against the defaulting corporate debtor would not be maintainable if the debt itself is barred by the limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, at the time of filing of the petition. Admittedly in the present case, the invoices under reference were raised in the year 2012-13 and the last invoice by the corporate debtor was made on 16.02.2013. The date of default is ten days after the date on which invoices were raised on from 10.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of claimed debt in default is Rs. 68,58,428/- (Rupees sixty eight lakhs fifty eight thousand four hundred twenty eight) and the date of default for each invoice is 10 days after the date of respective invoice. 2. The respondent is a state-owned Government Entity, engaged in business of administrating and running city buses in Ujjain region of Madhya Pradesh. The Authorized share capital and the Paid-up share capital of the respondent is Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively. 3. The averments made by the applicant/operational creditor in its application and presented/argued by the learned Advocate are summarized hereunder: (i) The applicant was authorized by the Petroleum Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) as City G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through said undated letter requested the applicant to exclude any amount of gas purchased by the respondent after 10.02.2013, the applicant has excluded any such amount while claiming the default in the demand notice. (v) The demand notice dated 26.08.2019 under section 8 of the Code was duly served on the corporate debtor. The track report is placed on record, which states 'Item Delivery Confirmed'. The corporate debtor has not replied to the said demand notice. Thus, the operational creditor filed present application under Section 9 of Code. 4. In the context, the defence placed by the respondent/corporate debtor in its affidavit in reply and submissions made thereon and as presented/argued by the learned Advocate are s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the delay payments and acknowledged to pay the outstanding principal amount. Further, along with the said letter the respondent paid Rs. 5,00,000/- through cheque dated 19.07.2017 as part payment against the outstanding principal amount. (v) As against the claimed amount of Rs. 68,58,428/-, the principal amount being Rs. 32,73,795/- is already paid by the respondent to the applicant and the same is accepted by the applicant. The bill issued by the applicant contains a clause of interest @ SBI PLR +2%, chargeable immediately after expiry of seven days from the date of the bill. However, the respondent calculated the interest @ 16.50% per annum which is incorrect, since the said SBI PLR changes every year. (vi) The last bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttedly in the present case, the invoices under reference were raised in the year 2012-13 and the last invoice by the corporate debtor was made on 16.02.2013. The date of default is ten days after the date on which invoices were raised on from 10.12.2012 to 26.02.2013 (upto 10.02.2013). Therefore, considering the date of last invoice, the period of limitation has expired [after three years] in the year 2016. The letter by the respondent for excluding the interest amount from the total outstanding amount along with the cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- was sent in the year 2017, i.e. much beyond the period of limitation, therefore, the said letter cannot be said to have extended the period of limitation. As such, the application filed on 11.09.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|