9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RP was initiated against the Company as a whole (Corporate Debtor), therefore, the homebuyers of Dreamz Sneh Project also filed their claims to the IRP which were admitted. However, by a subsequent order dated 04.09.2020, the CIRP initiated was ordered to be confined to only one project, namely, Dreamz Sumadhur Porject. As a result thereof, a separate cause of action arose to the Appellant for the purpose of redressal of their grievance with the passing of the order dated 04.09.2020 and therefore, they filed the application under Section 7 on 19.08.2021 within a period of three years from the date of cause of action 04.09.2020 had arisen. The arguments raised by the Appellant is that the limitation can be extended only under Section 18 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 83/BB/2021 by Respondent No. 1 under Section 420(2) of the Code seeking certain reliefs including appointment of Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari as the IRP which was allowed for modification in the order dated 15.02.2023, appointing Respondent No. 2 as the IRP and kept the rest of the order dated 15.02.2023 unaltered. 2. Brief facts of this case are that Pratap Chandra Padhy and two others (homebuyers) filed an application bearing CP (IB) No. 84/BB/2019 under Section 7 of the Code r/w Rules 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of the Corporate Debtor for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 40,06,625/-. This application was admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 of the Code, registered as CP (IB) No. 83/BB/2021, which has been admitted on 15.02.2023 and at that time, Jaya Bharuka was appointed as the IRP. However, Respondent No. 1 filed an application bearing I.A. No. 113/BB/2023 for modification in the order dated 15.02.2023. The said application was allowed to the extent indicated in the order dated 21.02.2023 and rest of the order dated 15.02.2023 was maintained. 5. This appeal has been filed by the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor in order to assail the validity of the order dated 15.02.2023 and the order dated 21.02.2023 only on the ground that the application filed under Section 7 is beyond the period of limitation. 6. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the application f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) Vs. C. Shiva Kumar Reddy Anr., (2021) 10 SCC 330. 9. In rebuttal, Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the judgment in the case of Dena Bank (Supra), relied upon by Respondent, is in respect of the judgment or the decree and does not contemplate the orders which are relied upon by the Respondents. 10. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The Corporate Debtor was incorporated on 16.01.2012. In the year 2014, the Corporate Debtor floated various housing projects including Dreamz Sumadhur Project and Dreamz Sneh Porject. The projects did not pick up leading to filing of various police complaints, cases before the Civil Courts, Consumer Courts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period 2015 to 2019 in respect of various Homebuyers. The Corporate Debtor was unable to complete the Project in time. However, even when one of the homebuyers fulfils the limitation it is sufficient. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar vs. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1, has observed that the homebuyers under Section 7 application only need to show the default qua one of the Financial Creditors in as much to maintain the limitation. Further, the cause of action also arises due to earlier orders dated 20.08.2019 and 04.09.2020 passed by this Adjudicating Authority in CP (IB) No. 84/BB/2019 in respect of same Corporate Debtor, which further extends the Limitation. Since the instant CP is filed on 19.08.2021, the same is filed w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chedule to the Limitation Act, the delay in filing a Petition in the NCLT is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act unlike delay in filing a suit. Furthermore, as observed above Section 14 and 18 of the Limitation Act are also applicable to proceedings under the IBC. 141. 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 acknowledgment to attract Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave (supra) cited by Mr. Shivshankar, this Court had no occasion to consider any proposal for one time sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
