Skip to main content

Entries In Balance Sheet Of Corporate Debtor Can Be Treated As Acknowledgment Of Liability Of Debt Payable To Financial Creditor

Cause Title : Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs Tulip Star Hotels Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 84-85 Of 2020, The Supreme Court Of India

Date of Judgment/Order : August 01, 2022

Corum : Indira Banerjee J., J. K. Maheshwari J.

Citied: Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Anr., Supreme Court

Background

The Respondent (corporate debtor) took loan from a consortium of bankers. The account turned NPA and a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 7th February 2011 which was modified/changed on 28th February 2011, 29th September 2011. Subsequently several extensions were requested by the Corporate Debtor and accepted by the Appellant. Ultimately, on 17th June 2013, the Appellant revoked the settlement and in terms of the default obligations under the Settlement Agreement, the rate of interest under the Deed of Variation was revised to 22%. By its letter dated 1st July 2013, the Corporate Debtor acknowledged its obligation to repay the aggregate assigned debt inclusive of interest. 

Subsequently, an application under Section 7 of IBC was filed by the Appellant and IRP was appointed. Corporate Debtor's objection on limitation was rejected by the NCLT. Finally, the Corporate Debtor as well as the Shareholders of the CD appealed before NCLAT which was allowed and subsequently, the Appellant approached Supreme Court.

One of the objections filed by the CD was that the Application of the Appellant was hopelessly barred by limitation, the same having been filed about eight/nine years after the account of the Corporate Debtor was declared NPA on 01.12.2008. Even assuming the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged liability, the last letter of acknowledgment was written in April 2013. The period of limitation still expired in April 2016.

The Appellant argued that the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged its liabilities towards the Appellant in its Financial Statements from 2008-09 to 2016-17.

The NCLAT had observed that Books of Account cannot be treated as an acknowledgement of liability in respect of debt payable.

Judgment

Disagreeing with the NCLAT, the SC observed that in Financial Statement for 2014-15, it is stated that ‘indebtness’ is to be read with Note No.5 in the notes of Accounts while in the Notes of Accounts, the Respondent No.3 has clearly stated that pursuant to the Orders of this Court, the parties entered into a Settlement which was unilaterally revoked by the Appellant on 17.06.2013 and thus the Respondent No.3 had been legally advised that the interest for the loans cannot be 22% as stated in the revoked settlement but 12.85% and that the rate of interest will be subject to the decision of the DRT, Mumbai. In the Financial Statement for 2015-16, similar disputes are raised in the notes and in the Financial Statement for 2016-17.

The balance-sheet acknowledged the continuance of the jural relationship of debtor and creditor between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor and the existence of financial liability of the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant. The application of the Appellant under Section 7 of the IBC was filed on 3.4.2018, well within three years from 14.5.2015, being the date on which the balance- sheet was signed. Similarly, the balance-sheet for the following financial year signed on 29.8.2016 also acknowledged the existence of jural relationship of debtor and creditor between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor and the existence of financial liability of the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant. 

In Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Anr., the Adjudicating Authority, considering an application under Section 7 of the IBC, is only required to see if there is the existence of a debt and default. Any dispute with regard to the quantum of debt is immaterial.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subs...
Post a Comment
Read more

Appeal to High Court under Wealth Tax Act is guided by Code of Civil Procedure

The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty case on Court In Maharaja Amrinder Singh vs The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, the Supreme Court held that Section 27-A of the Act, which provides a remedy of appeal to the High Court against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is modeled on existing Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). Indeed, as would be clear, the language of Section 27-A of the Act and Section 100 of the Code is identical. Both the Sections are, therefore, in pari materia. It is a case where Section 100 of the Code is bodily lifted from the Code and incorporated in Section 27-A of the Act with minor additions and alterations by following the principle of “legislation by incorporation". The Supreme Court while quoting A three Judge Benc...
Post a Comment
Read more