Skip to main content

NCLT to consider limitation even when not pleaded by defendants

Citation : Bank of Baroda vs Rajiv Rai, CP/89/IB/2021

Date of Judgment/Order : 20/6/2022

Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai

Corum : Justice (Retd.) S. Ramathilagam, Member (Judicial), Anil Kumar B, Member (Technical)

Background

These applications have been filed under Section 95 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the personal guarantors of SBQ Steels Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The present application is filed by the Financial Creditor viz. Bank of Baroda against the personal guarantors of the Corporate Debtor.

It is stated in Part III of the Application that the date on which the debt fell due was 31.03.2012 and the date of default is also on 31.03.2012. It is seen that the present Application has been filed before this Tribunal on 10.04.2021.

The Respondent has raised a plea of limitation as to the present Application. 

Judgment

The NCLT observed that the Respondent has entered into a Deed of personal guarantee as early as on 27.03.2012. Thereafter, it is stated in the synopsis filed by the Applicant that a loan recall notice was issued as early as on 06.11.2014 and the Respondent has acknowledged the same. Pursuant, thereto, no documents have been placed on record to show that the debt as claimed by the Applicant falls within the period of limitation.

The NCLT held that Section 238A of IBC, 2016 applies to the entire provisions of IBC, 2016 and as such Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 also applies to an Application filed under Section 95 of IBC, 2016. In the said circumstances, as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 2013, even Court / Tribunal is required to examine the debt on the point of limitation, even though such a defence has not been setup.

The NCLT also observed that the Corporate Debtor viz. SBQ Steels Limited has already been dissolved by virtue of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 11.02.2022 in MA/5/2021 and in that situation, any insolvency proceeding against the individual guarantor would be carried out only before the DRT having jurisdiction.

The text of Section 60(2) discloses that Section 60 of the IBC Code would apply to an individual only if there is a corporate insolvency resolution process pertaining to the corporate entity which is the principal debtor, that has been filed or commenced. In other words, in case of company 'A' being the principal debtor and an individual 'P' the guarantor promising repayment of the credit facilities obtained by 'A', if a corporate insolvency resolution process is initiated under the provisions of the Code pertaining to company 'A', the insolvency resolution process pertaining to guarantor 'P' would per force be before the same adjudicating authority, viz., the National Company Law Tribunal.  But, where there is no corporate insolvency resolution process initiated in respect of company 'A', insolvency proceedings pertaining to quarantor 'P' must necessarily be carried only to the iurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal and not to any other forum. To repeat, the provisions of the Acts of 1909 and 1920 will have no manner of application to guarantors who have furnished guarantees in connection with credit facilities obtained by corporate entities.




Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
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