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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more