9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the Respondent were declared NPA on 31.03.2015 and the application was filed by the Appellant for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 158.83. It is also not in dispute, as it has emerged from the record, that a sum of Rs. 2.65 Cr. was paid by the CD in the month of December, 2016 in the loan account which means that the Respondent had acknowledged its liability in the month of December, 2016, in terms of Section 18 and 19 of the Act, hence, the limitation would start again from the date of acknowledgement i.e. December, 2016 and will continue for three years up to December, 2019. The Respondent having acknowledged the debt in the month of December, 2016, during subsistence of period of limitation, would start the period of limitation a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009 11 Total 147 3. In addition to the above term loans, the CD availed a bank guarantee of Rs. 2.20 Cr. and has also availed the overdraft limit facility of Rs. 30 Cr. sanctioned vide letter dated 27.02.2014. 4. The Respondent contested the application on the ground that it is barred by the limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act). 5. The case of the Respondent is that the last documents executed by the CD was dated 1.03.2014 and the last balance confirmation letter is dated 23.09.2014 and all the accounts of the CD were declared as NPA on 31.03.2015. It is alleged before the Tribunal that One time Settlement (OTS) proposal/letters issued/amounts paid in respect of the said OTS proposals, all are after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. The said amounts were deposited by way of various demand drafts; the details whereof are given below: S. No. Draft No. Date Amount 1. 013968 20.12.2016 50.00 lacs 2. 040227 20.12.2016 30.00 lacs 3. 557376 19.12.2016 50.00 lacs 4. 016325 19.12.2016 50.00 lacs 5. 059298 28.12.2016 40.00 lacs 6. 059308 22.12.2016 05.00 lacs 7. 059299 20.12.2016 40.00 lacs 10. The copies of these drafts have also been shown to us, during the course of hearing, from the records appended as Annexure A7. 11. There is no denial to this factual averments by the Respondent which means that the amount of Rs. 2.65 Cr. were paid by the Respondent to the Appellant between 19.12.2016 to 28.12.2016 whereas the account was declared as NPA on 31.03.2015. It is submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the resolution of an amount of Rs. 158.83. It is also not in dispute, as it has emerged from the record, that a sum of Rs. 2.65 Cr. was paid by the CD in the month of December, 2016 in the loan account which means that the Respondent had acknowledged its liability in the month of December, 2016, in terms of Section 18 and 19 of the Act, hence, the limitation would start again from the date of acknowledgement i.e. December, 2016 and will continue for three years up to December, 2019. 14. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the payments have been made by the Respondent to the Appellant all after expiry of three years is patently erroneous and contrary to the record because the averment made in this appeal in para 7(m), proved by eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that the PNB who is the applicant in the instant IA No. 31 of 2021 has already filed CP (IB) No. 217/Chd/CHD/2018 in its own name and against the same CD i.e.Mis Walia Traders Limited alleging default in respect of a debt allegedly owed to it and hence, in terms of the provisions of the Code, it cannot maintain a second CP against the same corporate debtor, since if the instant IA is allowed, the instant CP would become the second CP by the same financial creditor against the same corporate debtor. 10. A rejoinder has been filed stating that both the CPs i.e CP (IB) No. 217/Chd/CHD/2018 filed by the PNB in its own name and the instant CP (IB) No. 84/Chd/2019 in which the PNB is seeking substitution of its name in place of OBC, are file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a suit shall include whole of the claim, hence if the petitioner is one and the same in both the CPs, it cannot maintain two separate petitions/applications under Section 7 of the Code. This submission is also rejected for the same reason that the facts, causes of action and dates of default are completely different and distinct in both the CPs. Moreover, the antecedent backdrop of the case is due to Govt. action. This surely cannot unfold into consequent non-suiting of the petitioner or erosion of the underlying cause that was impacted by a decision of the Govt. 14. In these circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any impediment in allowing the instant IA No. 31 of 2021 and accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
