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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more