Skip to main content

Commencement of Limitation - Date of default will be the date of declaration of account as NPA

In Jagdish Prasad Sarada vs Allahabad Bank, appeal was filed against the order of NCLT admitting Insolvency Resolution Petition against M/s. Sarda Agro Oils Limited and initiating ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ and appointed ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ .


The Adjudicating Authority has admitted the case based on some payments made by the Appellant- Corporate Debtor M/s. Sarda Agro Oils Limited, Hyderabad - into the current account of the Respondent Bank and the last payment being on 19.02.2016 for an amount of Rs.49,50000/- reflected in the ‘Statement in the Account’ of the Corporate Debtor in the books of the Respondent Bank inspite of NPA on 30.09.2015.


The Appellant prayed for allowing the Appeal and setting aside the ex-parte order dated 27.08.2019 as stated above apart from stay of Insolvency Proceeding against the Corporate Debtor etc primarily on the issue of limitation and the date from which the limitation period should be counted.


The Respondent Bank had argued that the only issue that deserves consideration in this matter is whether the Application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, 2016 filed by the Respondent Bank was within the period of limitation and has submitted that the Corporate Debtor/Appellant was already sanctioned the cash credit facility of Rs.20 Crore, Term Loan of Rs.14 crore and Letter of Creditor of Rs.65 Crores by way of a Common Sanction Letter dated 31.05.2012. It was also submitted that the Appellant became irregular in repayment and consequently the account was declared NPA on 30.09.2015. The Respondent Bank has taken necessary measure by invoking provisions section 13(2) & (4) SARFAESI Act, 2002. They have realized Rs.49,50,000/- on 19.02.2016 by way of cash and is reflected in the ledger of Corporate Debtor maintained with the Respondent Bank. The Respondent Bank has gone on further submission that by operation of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Article 137 of the Schedule to the said Act, a fresh period of limitation of 3 years commenced from 19.02.2016 when a part of the debt/interest was repaid. The Respondent Bank has also averred that they have filed under Section 7 Application of I&B Code, 2016 on 31.12.2018 which is within 3 years from 19.02.2016. They have cited the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment of M/s. Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave Vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Anr., (2019) 10 SCC 572.


This decision has been followed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the matter of Ishrat Ali Vs. Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd & Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1121 of 2019). Further, in the context of Section 19 of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamla Devi and Ors. Vs. Pt. Mani Lal Tiwari & Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 818 held that “4.... The function of Section 19 is to provide a later date to count the period of limitation afresh, and that fresh period of limitation will be computed from the time when the acknowledgement is signed....”.


The NCLAT observed that the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘B.K.Educational Services Private Limited Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates’ that the limitation period for application under Section 7 of the I&B Code is three years as provided by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which commences from the date of default and is extendable only by application of Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 if any case for condonation of delay is carved out, has again been reiterated in the latest pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.6347 of 2019) decided on 14th August, 2020. It is therefore manifestly clear that date of default will be the date of declaration of account as NPA and such date of default would not shift.


Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the NCLT including that of appointing IRP/RP, declaring moratorium, freezing of account etc. and all consequential action taken by IRP/RP including advertisement publication etc. all such orders and actions are declared illegal and set aside, the NCLAT reiterated that  the provisions of The Limitation Act,  1963 vide Section 238A of the I&B Code, 2016 will be applicable to all NPA cases provided they meet the criteria of Article 137 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963. The extension for the period of Limitation can only be done by way of application of Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963, if any case for the condonation of delay is made out.



Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more