9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na Bank has been followed in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. In the case of Dena Bank the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repayment of its dues to the Bank and the loan account was declared NPA on 31.12.2013, O.A No. 16 of 2015 was filed by the Bank on or about 01.01.2015 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, now known as the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 before the DRT at Bangalore. O.A was decreed on 27.03.2017. The Bank filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority on 12.10.2018 and subsequently filed one application i.e.I.A. No. 27 of 2019 on 09.01.2019 for permission to place on record additional documents including final decision dated 27.03.2017 of the DRT in OA No. 16 of 2015 and the recovery certificate dated 25.05.2017. There is hardly any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1359 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2022 - [ Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Mr. Kanthi Narahari ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Bahl , Adv For the Respondent: Mr. Baldev Singh Badhra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15) titled as SBI Vs. Saber Papers Limited Ors. was allowed by DRT-II, Chandigarh on 18.08.2017 declaring that the Corporate Debtor was liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 233,10,54,794.04 with costs and future interest on all accounts from 04.11.2015 till the date of realisation while other three recovery applications filed by remaining three aforesaid banks were still pending before the DRT-III, Chandigarh. 5. It is worthwhile to mention that while the application filed by the SBI before the DRT was pending, SBH, SBBJ and SBP were amalgamated with the SBI w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and thereafter the SBI filed the application under Section 7 of the Code on 27.09.2018 before the Adjudicating Authority at Chandigarh. In the application filed in Form-1, prescribed in Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, it is averred in Part-IV that the total defaulted amount is Rs. 517,72,84,977.85/- and the last date of NPA is 31.10.2013. 6. The Appellant filed an application bearing CA No. 660 of 2019 before the Adjudicating Authority to declare the application, filed under Section 7 of the Code by the Financial Creditor, as hopelessly time barre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were being taken by the respective bank. Reliance has also been placed on Babulal BardhajiGurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. Anr. Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.549 of 2018. It is pleaded that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B K Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Parag Gupta Associates supra was referred to in para No. 15 of the Hon'ble NCLAT order. It is stated that in para 29, the Hon'ble NCLAT has referred to Part V(First Division) of Limitation Act relating to 'Suits relating to Immoveable property to recover possession of the property mortgaged and afterwards transferred by the mortgagee for a valuable consideration and has stated that the period of limitation WIB12 years since the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff (Article 61(b)). The Hon'ble NCLAT held that in view of the aforesaid position of law, the property having mortgaged, the claim is not barred by limitation as a period of limitation is 12 years with regard to mortgaged property. The learned counsel for the financial creditor has stated that the Hon'ble NCLAT took into consideration the pendency before the DRT. As per list of dates and events (page 4 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o see how this para could possibly help the case of the respondents. Further, it is not for us to interpret, commercially or otherwise, articles of the Limitation Act when it is clear that a particular article gets attracted. It is well settled that there is no equity about limitation - judgments have stated that often time periods provided by the Limitation Act can be arbitrary in nature. 9. On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent has submitted that there is no quarrel with the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave (Supra) but a fresh period of limitation became available to the Respondent with the issuance of recovery certificate dated 18.08.2017 which has been placed on record by way of an application and since the application under Section 7 has been filed on 27.09.2018, therefore, it is within the period of limitation calculated from 18.08.2017. In support of his submissions, Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon two decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) vs C. Shivakumar Reddy Anr., 2021 10 SCC 330 and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs A. Balakrishnan Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 706. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
