9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of limitation. In the given facts and circumstances of the case Vidarbha Industries Power Limited [ 2022 (7) TMI 581 - SUPREME COURT] , relied upon by the Appellant, is not applicable because there is a clear admission on the part of the Corporate Debtor of the amount of debt due in view of the letter dated 31.01.2018. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M. SURESH KUMAR REDDY VERSUS CANARA BANK ORS. [ 2023 (5) TMI 570 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that it was clarified by the order in review that the decision in the case of Vidarbha Industries was in the setting of facts of the case before this court. Hence, the decision in the case of Vidarbha Industries cannot be read and understood as taking a view which is contrary to the view taken in the cases of Innovative Industries and E.S. Krishnamurthy [ 2021 (12) TMI 683 - SUPREME COURT] . The view taken in the case of Innovative Industries still holds good. There is hardly any merit in these two appeals which do not require any interference and therefore, the present appeals are hereby dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1526 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1527 of 2022 - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanction letter dated 18.02.2012. The Corporate Debtor agreed to pay interest @4.50 bps over base rate with monthly interest in respect of the cash credit facility, including levy of penal interest, on account of non-compliance of sanction conditions. 5. The cash credit facility was secured by the Corporate Debtor by creating a pari passu charge of the flats of the project RNA Address , entered into escrow agreement and loan cum hypothecation agreement both dated 18.02.2012. The said cash credit facilities were further secured by way of mortgage of land, owned by RNA Corp. Pvt. Ltd., vide deed of mortgage dated 18.02.2012 and personal guarantee was provided by Anil Kumar Agarwal, Saranga A Agarwal, Anubhav A. Agarwal and Gokul A Agarwal vide guarantee agreement dated 18.02.2012 and Corporate Guarantee was provided by RNA Corp. Pvt. Ltd. vide guarantee agreement dated 18.02.2012. 6. The Corporate Debtor failed to maintain its account and defaulted on 31.03.2014. The Financial Creditor requested the Corporate Debtor to regularise its account. The Corporate Debtor addressed a revival letter dated 18.03.2014 and acknowledged the outstanding debt. The Financial Creditor vide let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Debtor also enclosed a cheque of Rs. 2 Crore which was deposited by the Financial Creditor in a separate no lien account but the compromise proposal was not accepted. The last payment made by the Corporate Debtor in its loan account was Rs. 50,00,000/- on 01.06.2015. The Financial Creditor has thus filed the application under Section 7 of the Code in which the date of default has been categorically mentioned in part IV of the application filed under Section 7 of the Code as 01.06.2015. 9. On the other hand, the Corporate Debtor pleaded in the reply that another Financial Creditor had already filed a Company Petition under Section 7 of the Code separately against the Corporate Guarantor i.e. RNA Corp Pvt. Ltd. which had been admitted by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 26.11.2019 in which the Financial Creditor had filed a claim of Rs. 137,55,54,367/-. 10. The case set up by the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) was that the Financial Creditor, for the same set of debt, cannot file his claim in two separate CIRP, one against the borrower and another against the Corporate Guarantor and relied upon a decision of the NCLAT in the matter of Dr. Vishnu Agarwal Vs. Piramal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na Energy Venture Pvt. Ltd. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 633 of 2020 has held that not only the CIRP can be initiated against both the borrower and the guarantor but also held that the claim can be filed for the same debt in the CIRP of both the borrower and the guarantor. 15. As regards, the issue of limitation is concerned, it has been held that the date of default is 01.06.2015 and the compromise letter acknowledging the existence of debt towards the Financial Creditor was written by the Corporate Debtor on 31.01.2018, therefore, the application filed under Section 7 of the Code on 15.01.2021 is within the period of limitation. Admitted, Harshad Shamkant Deshpande was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), moratorium was imposed and aggrieved against the order of admission, the present appeal has been filed. The first appeal is by the shareholder and ex-director whereas in the 2nd appeal, the appellant is a federal society comprising of nine societies incorporated under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The project includes a plot of land where the Appellant was earlier situated and thereafter, each of the societies, which constitute the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation would again start to run for three years up to 31.01.2021 and the application filed under Section 7 of the Code by the Financial Creditor on 15.01.2021 was within the period of limitation? 18. In this regard, Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank Vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021) 6 SCC 330 in which it was held that 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 a live claim, made within the period of limitation, should not also be construed as an acknowledgement to attract Section 18 of the Limitation Act . 19. In the present case, the claim w.e.f. 01.06.2015 till 01.06.2018 was live because the Financial Creditor could have filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code during this period and the occurrence of one time settlement/compromise, initiated at the instance of the Corporate Debtor during this period vide its letter dated 31.01.2018 had revived the period of limitation from 31.01.2018 to 31.01.2021 in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We are unable to agree with the arguments of Learned Counsel for Respondent that when for same debt claim is made in CIRP against Borrower, in the CIRP against Guarantor the amount must be said to be not due or not payable in law. Under the Contract of Guarantee, it is only when the Creditor would receive amount, the question of no more due or adjustment would arise.... 19. It is clear that in the matter of guarantee, CIRP can proceed against Principal Borrower as well as Guarantor. The law as laid down by the Hon ble High Courts for the respective jurisdictions, and law as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court for the whole country is binding. In the matter of Piramal, the Bench of this Appellate Tribunal interpreted the law. Ordinarily, we would respect and adopt the interpretation but for the reasons discussed above, we are unable to interpret the law in the manner it was interpreted in the matter of Piramal. For such reasons, we are unable to uphold the Judgement as passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 24. Therefore, we do not find any error in the approach of the Ld. Tribunal while rejecting the argument of the Appellant in this regard as well. 25. In the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
