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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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