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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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