Skip to main content

Insolvency-Disclosure Of Debt On Balance Sheet Is Not Acknowledgement Under Section 18 Of The Limitation Act, 1963.

IN THE MATTER OF Invent Assets Securitization and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. vs Xylon Electrotechnic Pvt. Ltd.,  the Appellant – Financial Creditor’s application filed under Section 7 of the I&B Code against ‘Xylon Electrotechnic Pvt. Ltd.’ (Corporate Debtor) for having committed default came to be dismissed in terms of the impugned order dated 28th May, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) on the ground that the claim in respect of the ‘financial debt’ was barred by limitation and the Applicant/Appellant had not submitted any proof of continuous acknowledgement of debts by the Corporate Debtor. Aggrieved thereof the Appellant (Financial Creditor) filed the instant appeal assailing the impugned order on the ground that the debt was payable in law as the same had been acknowledged by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ in its balance-sheet of financial years commencing from 2010 to 2016 which for purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act amounted to acknowledgement of liability on the part of the Respondent (Corporate Debtor).

The NCLAT however disagreeing with the Appellant referred to the majority judgment of the four Member Bench of NCLAT in V. Padmakumar v. Stressed Assets Stabilitation  Fund (SASF) & Anr. – Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 57 of 2020’ decided on 12th March, 2020. In the said judgment the NCLAT had held that 

“In view of the aforesaid findings, agreeing with the decisions aforesaid, at the cost of repetition, we hold:

(i) As the filing of Balance Sheet/ Annual Return being mandatory under Section 92(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, failing of which attracts penal action under Section 92(5) & (6), the Balance Sheet / Annual Return of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ cannot be treated to be an acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(ii) If the argument is accepted that the Balance Sheet / Annual Return of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ amounts to acknowledgement under Section 18 of  the Limitation Act, 1963 then in such case, it is to be held that no limitation would be applicable because every year, it is mandatory for the ‘Corporate Debtor’ to file Balance Sheet/ Annual Return, which is not the law.”

The NCLAT observed that the law as interpreted in the aforesaid judgment holds the field till date. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant to find fault with the impugned order on the ground of limitation being extended on account of the financial debt being reflected in the balance-sheet/annual return of the Corporate Debtor for the relevant period has to be repelled.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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