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

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more