9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed an application under Section 7 of the Code against M/s Walia Traders Limited (CD) for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 158.83 Cr. (with interest up to 31.03.2018) and also bank guarantee of Rs. 0.65 Cr. 2. The appellant gave the following term loans to the Respondent which read as under:- Account Type Date of Sanction Amount in Rs. Cr. Term Loan I 19.02.2007 65 Term Loan II 05.08.2011 35 Term Loan II 22.06.2009 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 limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation and accordingly dismissed. 9. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed a patent error in not taking into consideration the entire facts on record. In this regard, he has referred to averments made in para 7(m) of the grounds of appeal which read as under:- "m. That in the month of December 2016 the Respondent/Corporate Debtor deposited various amounts on various dates in its loan account totalling to Rs. 2,65,00,000/-. 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 19.12.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acknowledgement and payments made by the CD were all after expiry of the three years period from the date of default/NPA" is not correct. 13. We have heard Counsel for the parties and after examining the record are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has committed a patent error in examining the issue of limitation in respect of the petition filed under Section 7 by the Appellant. There is no dispute that all the accounts 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, the present CP (IB) No. 217/CHD/2018 filed by the PNB in its own name is not maintainable. This argument has been raised by the Appellant not in this case but in CP (IB) No. 84/CHD/2019 which has been rejected by the Tribunal by making following observations in CP (IB) No. 84/CHD/2019 which is reproduced as under:- "9. The respondent-corporate debtor in CP (IB) No. 84/Chd/CHD/2019 i.e. M/s Walia Traders Limited who is also the respondent in the instant IA No. 31 of 2021 filed a reply opposing the IA, inter alia, on the ground 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2016 nor any other provision of the Code bar the filing of a second petition by the same financial creditor against the same CD, if the debt and default in respect of second CP occurred in a different factual situation. Admittedly, the facts in both the CPs i.e. in CP (IB) No. 217/Chd/CHD/2018 and CP (IB) No. 84/Chd/2019 are completely different. The debt and date of default in both the CPs are different and arose in a different factual situation. 13. The other submissions of the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the CD that as per order 2 Rule 2 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 u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
